1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the whole pleadings:

Around early 2014, D, the Plaintiff’s Lee Dong-in village, stated that D, the Plaintiff, changed the purpose of using 10,909 square meters of the land owned by the Plaintiff, and tried to assist the Plaintiff to use penture. Accordingly, D, a certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, seal imprint certificate, and real estate registration certificate, etc. of D’s issuance.

B. On February 28, 2014, D borrowed KRW 40 million from the Defendant, and upon delegation from the Plaintiff, D drafted a real estate transaction reservation contract under the Plaintiff’s name as if it offered the said forest as collateral, and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression thereto.

C. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on March 3, 2014, the Changwon District Court, the Southern Sea Registry, which was received on March 3, 2014.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion D completed the above provisional registration against the Defendant without obtaining the power of representation from the Plaintiff.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff conferred a power of representation to complete the above provisional registration to D, or even if so, he/she is liable for the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

C. In order to claim the effect of an expression agency in excess of the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act, it is a requirement to believe that the other party has the right of representation and has reasonable grounds to believe that the other party has the right of representation in the case where the person does an act other than his/her authority, explicitly or implicitly, or with the intention of representation, and that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the other party has the right of representation. The existence of justifiable grounds here should be objectively observed and determined in all circumstances existing when the act of an agent

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2475 Decided July 7, 1987