Effect of an expression of intent by an agent in his name;

An agent shall not be required to express his/her name as an agent, but may be in his/her own name.

Article 114 of the Civil Act

Hongdu (Attorney Kim Jae-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Park Jong-chul and 13 others (Attorneys Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 4294No1299 delivered on December 27, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are as shown in the attached Table.

The First Ground for Appeal

The issue is that the court below denies Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 11 which was lawfully admitted by the court below on the ground that the testimony of the witnessism at the court of first instance and the court of original instance, which was not accepted by the court below, is not sufficient to deny the establishment of Eul evidence No. 1 even by the testimony at the court of original instance and the court of original instance, and it is not necessarily required to express that an agent is a representative and make an expression of intention, but it can be done in his name. Thus, there is no error of law in the court of original judgment.

As to the second ground for appeal

Although there is no illegality in the court below's finding the authenticity of the evidence No. 1, it explained in the first ground of appeal that there is no illegality in the court below's finding the existence of the evidence No. 1, and according to the reasoning of the court below, it is clear that the purport of finding the legitimate purchase of each of the buildings of this case from the plaintiff's legitimate representative by evidence is the purport of recognizing the act of the plaintiff's realization of the non-party index as the plaintiff's assertion agent, and therefore there is no reason to argue that the non-party No. 1 is the plaintiff's assertion agent, and according to the contents of the evidence No. 1, it can be recognized that the non-party No. 24,5,8,9 is the acquisition

As to the third ground for appeal

According to the witness Kim Yong-sik's testimony and evidence No. 4-2 No. 10-2 of No. 1.10-2 of the evidence No. 4-2 as evidence, it is sufficient for the court below to recognize the fact that the defendant Park Jae-sik purchased the building listed in the No. 7 List No. 7 from his agent Kim Yong-ju on the date of each judgment, and the part that the defendant Lee Jae-sik made the sale procedure with documents pointing out the Y-ju's arguments in the witness use testimony is about No. 12-1 through No. 12-6 of the list No. 9, and there is no reason to hold that the court below erred in recognizing the plaintiff's right of representation as to Kim Yong-ju without evidence, since it is clear that the court below did not adopt evidence, and since No. 12-2 of the evidence No. 10-2 of the court below stated in the evidence No. 10, it is not a receipt as pointed out, but a registration certificate of right to use the above real estate under the name of Lee Jae-tae-sik-sik-chul-chul-man's.

The ground of appeal No. 4.5 is examined.

In full view of the records adopted by the court below as evidence, on July 4, 1959, the ownership of the real estate indicated in No. 2.4.5.9.9. at the end of the judgment of the court below among the real estate in this case shall be transferred to the non-party Mung Industrial Co., Ltd., and only the remainder shall be owned by the plaintiff, but it shall be recognized that the order of the non-party Mung Housing Association head sold the real estate to the defendants in advance according to the gadical area. As to the defendant Mung, the real estate recorded in the No. 3 list shall be as of July 14, 1959 as of July 14, 1959, and the procedure of the court below's decision on the transfer of the real estate recorded in the No. 2 list, which was owned by the non-party Mung Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd., shall be rejected as the plaintiff's legitimate owner on July 15, 1959 who stated the above real estate in the No. 4 list as the plaintiff's title 1985.5.

The appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leapap