(a) The gender of an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act, in cases where he/she, without indicating an act of representation, and by deceiving himself/herself as his/her own identity, directly performs a legal act under his/her name (negative with qualification

B. In a case where an agent, who was delegated with all management authority concerning an apartment by himself/herself, rents the apartment by pretending to himself/herself, sells the apartment to the lessee by pretending to himself/herself, whether the legal doctrine of apparent representation in excess of his/her authority may apply mutatis mutandis

A. Apparent representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established when an agent expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intention to act for himself/herself, or performs any act other than power with his/her agent’s intent. In cases where an agent uses his/her name without expressing his/her act of representation and deceptions his/her name as if he/she were the principal and thereby directly performs a legal act under the name of the principal, barring any special circumstance, an expressive representation under the above Article cannot be established.

B. In cases where an agent who has leased an apartment by pretending to himself/herself with all management authority, such as the lease of the apartment, etc., has again performed a legal act of selling the apartment to the lessee by pretending himself/herself to himself/herself, it may be deemed that the legal doctrine of expression agency beyond his/her authority has an effect on himself/herself by analogy

Article 126 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 87Da3329 delivered on Nov. 13, 1992 (Gong1993, 1910), Supreme Court Decision 71Da2365 delivered on Apr. 9, 1974 (Gong1974, 7838), Supreme Court Decision 74Da223 delivered on Apr. 9, 1974 (Gong1974, 7839 delivered on May 25, 1976), Supreme Court Decision 75Da1803 delivered on May 28, 1978 (Gong1974, 7839 delivered on Apr. 9, 1976)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 92Na2308 delivered on October 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant, based on its adopted evidence, entrusted all the management of the apartment of this case, including the lease of the apartment of this case with the seal of the defendant to the non-party who is his punishment. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence

The expression agency of Article 126 of the Civil Act is established when an agent expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intention to act for himself/herself, or performs any act other than his/her authority with an intention to act as an agent. In cases where an agent uses his/her name without any such representation, and deceptions his/her name as if he/she was the principal, and thereby directly performs a legal act under his/her name, barring any special circumstance, the expression agency under the above provision of the Civil Act cannot be established. However, as in the case of this case, if an agent, as he/she was delegated with all management authority, such as the lease of an apartment, by misrepresenting himself/herself as he/she himself/herself, sells an apartment again to the lessee, he/she shall be deemed to have the effect of the above act by applying the legal principle of representation beyond his/her authority to the Nonparty at the time of the above sale contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Da273, Mar. 28, 1988; 77Da16975, May 28, 197, etc.).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the representation. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.