A case in which an expression agency in excess of authority is recognized;

Where a person to whom the procedure for the division of a site, which is the property devolving upon the State, and the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership, borrows money from a third party and executes a sale security contract on the site, he/she shall be liable to the third party, there is any reasonable ground to believe that he/she has the authority to do so,

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da279 delivered on May 10, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 64Da1244 delivered on December 22, 1964, Supreme Court Decision 66Da279 delivered on December 6, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 1324 delivered on May 10, 196, Article 126(36)250 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (65Ga1011)

This appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was made on April 4, 1963 by the Busan District Court, No. 8799, against the plaintiff as to the 1st Do-dong, Jung-gu, Busan, Busan, to the 20th Do-dong.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff's above 20,000 won and the above 3-month seal and the above 4-month seal and the above 3-month seal and the above 4-month seal and the above 5-month seal and the above 1-month seal and the above 4-month seal and the above 5-month seal and the above 4-month seal and the above 5-month seal and the above 4-month seal and the above 5-month seal and the above 5-month seal and the above 4-month seal and the above 5-month seal and the above 5-month seal and the above 4-month seal and the above 5-month transfer registration were accepted by the Busan District Court (the plaintiff shall be accepted as the 8798, but this shall be recognized as the 8799, and the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was made under the name of the defendant and the above 3-month evidence and the above 9-month evidence and the non-party 1-month evidence and the above 6-month evidence are found as exist.

Therefore, the above legal act of Nonparty 1 is not effective against the Plaintiff as an unauthorized act. However, the Defendant asserts that the above act constitutes an expression agent beyond his authority. Thus, considering the above evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4-5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9, and testimony of Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff’s crew member of the Korea Shipping Corporation, who is the above witness Nos. 4 and the above witness No. 3, has a lot of time to resist the above purport of oral argument, and thus, the Plaintiff’s authority to recognize the above legal act as an agent of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 5, who is his wife, should be entrusted with the above house No. 1 and the above land division and the above land constitutes an act of sale by borrowing the Plaintiff’s seal and the above document No. 1, who was in custody by Nonparty 5, and thus, the Plaintiff’s authority to recognize the above legal act as an agent of Nonparty 1 and the above document No. 2.

The plaintiff's above contract is clear to be a special contract for redemption, or a special contract for payment in kind, and its market price is 1 million won or more at the time of the above site, and the sum of interest within the limit of 3.20,000 won and interest within the limit of 9 months up to the due date of payment for the above loan is less than 3.70,00 won, so it is obvious that the debtor is considerably unfavorable. Thus, the promise for return in substitute of Article 607 of the Civil Act constitutes only if it promises to transfer other property rights in lieu of the return of borrowed goods in a loan for consumption. In this case, it cannot be seen as a contract for sale in substitution in accordance with Article 607 of the Civil Procedure Act since it is recognized as above, it cannot be seen as a contract for sale in substitute of the borrowed goods. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the above contract for sale in substitute of the above site is invalid under the premise that the above contract for sale in lots is invalid as the above 900,000 won,000 won.

Judges Cho Tae-hee (Presiding Judge)