Cases where an expression agency is recognized as an expression agency;

If the Plaintiff entrusted the Nonparty with all acts on the purchase of real estate or the registration of transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff, thereby completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, and thereafter, entrusted the Nonparty with the possession and management of such real estate, and if the Nonparty delivered the seal and the certificate of seal impression to the said Nonparty, then the said Nonparty sold the said real estate as if he had the right to sell the said real estate, the Plaintiff is liable to act

Articles 126 and 129 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2024 Delivered on December 21, 1971

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Busan District Court (70Da488)

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2204 Delivered on December 21, 1972

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant 3: (a) on November 4, 1969, the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s registration office received on November 1, 1969; (b) on November 1, 1969, the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on the ground of sale as of November 1, 1969; (c) on June 18, 1969, the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on the ground of sale as of June 16, 1969 as of June 16, 1969; and (d) on April 14, 1969, Defendant 1 implemented the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on the ground of sale as of April 2, 1969, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The same shall apply to the order.

According to the testimony of the non-party 1 and 2 of the original judgment and the result of the criminal examination of the original court's criminal records, the non-party 3, who had been able to purchase 750,00 won or more from the plaintiff at the time of the initial purchase of the real estate by the non-party 3, who had been able to purchase 750,00 won or more from the plaintiff, was able to dispose of the real estate and liquidate its debts under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who had been able to purchase 750,00 won or more from the defendant 1 and the non-party 3, who had been able to purchase 750,000 won or more from the plaintiff (the non-party 3 was able to dispose of this real estate to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who had been holding a seal on April 19, 196, and sold it to the non-party 1 after the plaintiff's signature and the above certificate of the title transfer.

Thus, the above transfer of ownership in Defendant 1's name may be deemed null and void because it is by an act of disposal by a person without authority. However, in this case, the plaintiff himself was the person who was aware of the fact that he delegated all the rights concerning the sale of the real estate or the transfer of ownership to the non-party 3 in purchasing the original real estate, and in front, the part of the criminal record verification result of the court below's criminal record and the witness of the court below's witness 2, 6, and the witness of the party after remanding the part of the testimony of the non-party 5, the plaintiff delegated the management and preservation of the real estate by letting the non-party 3 occupy the real estate even after the purchase of the real estate, and the above non-party was recognized as having been holding the seal and the certificate of personal seal impression and exercised it as having the right to dispose of the real estate to the non-party 1, and therefore, the party to the transaction was responsible for the act of expression by the non-party 1 as a party to the transaction.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection based on the premise that the above transfer registration of ownership by the defendant 1 is null and void by a person who is not authorized to dispose of the property shall be dismissed without any need to further decide on the registration under the name of the remaining defendant, etc., and therefore, the original judgment is improper in its purport differently. Thus, the original judgment is improper in its purport. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to revoke

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju