logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1960. 2. 4. 선고 4291민상508 판결
[토지및건물저당권설정등기말소][집8민,011]
Main Issues

The actual examples of apparent representation in excess of authority

Summary of Judgment

In borrowing money from a third person on the security of a real estate by an agent who has expressed his/her intent in his/her name or is authorized to receive an expression of intent in the name of the principal with respect to bank loans, the delivery of all necessary documents, such as the certificate of right to the real estate, certificate of seal impression, power of delegation, certificate of loan, etc., shall be a part of the justifiable reason to believe that the agent is the agent to whom the authority to dispose of the real estate has been delegated with the authority to dispose

[Reference Provisions]

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Kim Jong-ok

Defendant-Appellant

Kim Kim

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 58No466 delivered on June 18, 1958, Seoul High Court Decision 2005Da1466 delivered on June 18, 2008

Reasons

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of acting as an expression agent on the ground that the non-party merely was the deceased Kim Young-young in negotiating bank loans. However, according to the testimony of the non-party in the court of first instance and the statement of the non-party Nos. 3 through 10 cited by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize that the non-party was a sub-agent of the non-party Kim Young-young who was authorized to express his/her intent in his/her name or receive his/her expression of intent in connection with bank loans, and it is sufficient to find that the non-party was the non-party Kim Young-young who was authorized to receive his/her expression of intent, and that the non-party's testimony was nothing more than that of the non-party Kim Young-young, and that the court below rejected the judgment of the court below as to whether the non-party's acting representative did not have the right to represent the real estate as a legitimate reason for the issuance of the certificate of authority to the non-party Kim Young-chul-chul's as collateral.

Justices Jeon Soo-tae (Presiding Judge)

arrow