If the registration of ownership transfer has been made at will in his/her own place by using other person's registration documents, etc. and further the contract to establish a mortgage with a third party is concluded, the nature of the expression agency (negative)

(A) If the Plaintiff’s document required for the registration of ownership transfer, such as the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, was used to keep and register the ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff’s wife (B), and then the said (B) was registered as a mortgagee with (B) and (B) as a mortgagee, the party to the said contract shall be deemed to have registered the establishment of a mortgage with (B) on behalf of the Plaintiff who is not a contracting party, and the said (A) cannot be deemed to have concluded a mortgage contract with (B) on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the said (A) cannot be deemed to have been registered as an expression agent, and thus, the effect of the said contract cannot be attributed to the Plaintiff.

Article 125 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Daejeon District Court Decision 84Na378 delivered on May 8, 1985

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the former part of the judgment, the non-party 1 recognized that the above real estate was registered under the name of the non-party 1's provisional registration, personal seal impression and personal seal impression necessary for the registration procedure, and that the plaintiff and the above non-party 2 were in custody with the above documents, which are the owner of the real estate, on November 16, 1982. The provisional registration under the name of the plaintiff and the above non-party 2 was cancelled, and the registration was passed through the transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff's own address on the same day, and on the basis of this fact, the registration was made under the name of the above non-party 1's assistant's name on behalf of the defendants, and the registration was made under the name of the above non-party 1's provisional registration and the registration was made under the name of the above non-party 1's act without the consent of the plaintiff who is the owner of the above non-party 1's provisional registration and the registration was made under the name of the above non-party 2's title.

However, as determined by the court below, if Nonparty 1 registered the ownership transfer of the real estate of this case in the name of Nonparty 3, his wife, using the documents required for the registration of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression, etc., and the above Nonparty 3 became a mortgagee and the above Defendants’ assistant intervenor was registered the establishment of the mortgage, the parties to the above mortgage contract are clear that Nonparty 3 was the assistant intervenor of the above Defendants and the Defendants, and the above Nonparty 1 was registered the above establishment of the mortgage contract on behalf of the above Defendants, and it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 1 concluded the above assistant contract with the above Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiff who was not a party to the contract and registered the establishment of the mortgage. Thus, there is no room to apply this legal theory. Under the judgment of the court below, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1, who concluded the above mortgage contract was related to the Plaintiff’s expression agent and the Plaintiff, and therefore, the validity of the contract is attributed to the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to representation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)