beta
Main Issues
Juristic acts and express representation beyond the authority of the wife who committed the real property owned by the husband.
Summary of Judgment
Since the authority of the wife on the disposal of her husband's real property belongs to a different example, it is not sufficient to say that the wife has the authority to act as a family member to act as a proxy under this Article, and there is an objective reason to justify that she believed that she had the authority to act as a proxy on her husband's act.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 126 of the Civil Act, Article 827 of the Civil Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 68Da1727, 1728 Decided November 26, 1968
Plaintiff-Appellant
Plaintiff
Defendant-Appellee
Cho-young et al. and three others
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2540 delivered on October 31, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2540 delivered on October 31, 1969
Text
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney
According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 were divorced by a divorce judgment on November 17, 1952, but they had no authority to do so. From around April 1963, the non-party 1 was living in Seoul with the plaintiff's forest, and the non-party 1 was living in his own house without consent of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2. The court below found that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 had no authority to do so on the real estate list (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 should have no authority to do so on the non-party 1 and the non-party 6's own real estate, and it was hard to find out the facts that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 had a legitimate authority to do so on the real estate list (the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 had no authority to do so on the part of the plaintiff's husband and the non-party 2, who had no authority to do so.
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon