Apparent expression agent who has neglected his/her right of representation for daily living in de facto marital relations.

A case where an act of expression by which a monthly right of representation has been taken between de facto and de facto.

Article 126 of the Civil Act, Article 827 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2077 delivered on December 23, 1980, 80Da2077 (Supreme Court Decision 12564 delivered on December 23, 198, Supreme Court Decision 28No. 247 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 28No. 207 delivered on June 247, 200, Part II, Article 827(1)63 delivered on summary of decision and summary of decision

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (79Gahap185)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,50,000 won with the amount of KRW 2,00,000 with the amount of KRW 5,50,000 from May 9, 1979 to the amount of KRW 22,50,000 with the amount of KRW 3,00,000 with the amount of KRW 25% per annum from May 9, 1979 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

First of all, the plaintiff asserted that the non-party 1, who is not the plaintiff directly accused and his representative, 2,00,000 won on May 8, 1979; 5,500,000 won on the 21st of that month; 3,00,000 won on the 23th of that month; 4% per month interest; and 1 month from the above lending date; and 3,00,000 won on the 21st of that month; and 4% per month interest; and the repayment period after the above lending each contract after the above lending date; therefore, the defendant's testimony as to whether the above assertion was the borrower or not; 1 through 3; and 2% of the results of each record verification conducted by the court below; and 3,00,00 won on the testimony of non-party 1 and 4, it cannot be accepted without any evidence, in light of the above facts that the non-party 1 prepared the defendant's seal.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was responsible for the above 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the above 7th of the 0th of the 0th of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2.

If the facts are identical to this, it shall be deemed that the right of mutual representation has been recognized regarding the matters concerning the daily home affairs between the non-party 1 and the defendant, and therefore, the non-party 1 also has the right of representation as to the defendant's daily home affairs. While the non-party 1 exceeded his authority as the defendant's representative and committed the above act of borrowing, it shall be deemed that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the plaintiff was the right of representation as the plaintiff to the non-party 1 (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2077, Dec. 23, 1980; 80Da2077, Dec. 2

If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,50,000 won with interest rate of 25% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act from May 9, 1979 to 5,500,000 won with respect to 2,00,000 won with respect to the above money that the plaintiff sought as the above money from May 9, 1979, and from 22,50,000 won with respect to 3,00,000 won with respect to 2,50,000 won with respect to the above money from May 9, 1979, and from 24th, from 24th to 3,000,000 won with respect to the above money, and there is a ground for the plaintiff's claim for the performance of this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the appeal cost is decided as per Disposition with respect to the defendant

Judges Han Jae-young (Presiding Judge)