Whether an agent who has the authority to conclude a sales contract has the right to receive the balance (affirmative)

An agent who is authorized to conclude a sales contract on behalf of the owner of real estate has the right to receive the balance, except in extenuating circumstances.

Article 118 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 1957No840 Decided March 27, 1958

[Defendant-Appellant] Han-Jon Law Office (Law Firm Hann-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Ha Young-type et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na32830 delivered on September 7, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendants acquired the above real estate (No. 301) and the above apartment house No. 101 and No. 102, and completed the registration of ownership transfer from 00, May 15, 1987 to 100, and then delivered the above 3 households to 0, the above 100 households to 0, and the above 100 households were entrusted with the management of the above 18 households. Since the defendants requested the above 10 households to purchase the above 3 households of the above apartment house, the above 00 households were issued to 0,000 won to 0,000 won, and the above 10,000 won was delivered to 10,000 won after the above 80,000 won was delivered to 10,000 won after the above 10,000 won was delivered to 0,000 won was delivered to 10,000 won after the above 10,0003 others.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

An agent who has the authority to conclude a sales contract on behalf of the owner of real estate has the authority to receive the remainder unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 1957Hun-Ma840 delivered on March 27, 1958). Accordingly, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the court below was just in holding that the court below was the authority to receive the remainder from the owner because the non-party Hoho had the authority to conclude the sales contract on behalf of the defendants at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles

In the case where the non-party Lee Ho-ho entered into a sales contract without authority and the defendant confirmed the above act of unauthorized Representation while receiving 6,00,000 won out of the down payment from the Dong-ho. Thus, the above Lee Ho-ho did not have the right to receive the remainder. However, this is not accepted since this is based on the premise that the above Lee Ho-ho did not have the right to receive the remainder, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

In addition, the court below's rejection of the testimony of the first instance court and the first instance court to the effect that the defendant (in the second instance court) ordered the plaintiff to pay the remaining amount directly to the defendant at the time of receiving the intermediate payment from the plaintiff, and that the court below withdrawn the right to receive the remaining amount of this title. In light of the record, it is reasonable to view that the result of the plaintiff's personal examination can not be evidence to acknowledge the above fact. Thus, the court below's failure to make any judgment, and there is no error in the determination of evidence that could affect the conclusion of the judgment. All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing parties. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)