The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

(a) To transfer the right by a juristic act, there is a disposal act by the holder of the right or the person having the authority of disposal;

Where an unentitled person disposes of another person's right, the right shall not be transferred, except in extenuating circumstances.

However, in such a case, it is permissible in accordance with the principle of private autonomy that the right holder can establish his legal relationship according to his own will.

Such ratification shall be known to the effect that the disposition by an unentitled person was taken, and may be made explicitly or implicitly, and the declaration of such intention may also be detrimental to either the unentitled person or the other party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 63Da880 Decided June 2, 1964, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da44291 Decided November 9, 2001, etc.). When a right holder ratified a disposition rendered by an unentitled person, the case where the person himself/herself ratified the disposition made by the unentitled person and the situation of interest between the parties is similar. As such, Articles 130 and 133 of the Act on the Ratification of Unauthorized Representation are applicable by analogy to the ratification of an unentitled person.

Therefore, if a contract is made by an unentitled person, it should be viewed that the effect of the contract is retroactively reverted to the right holder when the contract is concluded.

B. According to the judgment below, the following facts are revealed.

(1) The Plaintiff is the mother of Pyeongtaek-si and the owner of land B 2,882 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On December 21, 2010, C entered the Defendant Association and worked for the Defendant Association, and D entered the Defendant Association around February 20, 1993 and was discharged from the Defendant’s branch office around August 14, 2013.

(3) D and C conspired to forge and use a loan transaction agreement under the name of the Plaintiff, a mortgage contract, etc., and the mortgage contract regarding the instant land on May 18, 2012, and only the Plaintiff, the maximum debt amount, 320 million won.