Representation in the month of competence;

Unless special circumstances exist, it can be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for the Nonparty to believe that the Nonparty was entitled to accept and conclude a contract on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff when the Nonparty borrowed money from the Plaintiff as well as the establishment of a security right with respect to the borrowed money, and was possessed with the Plaintiff’s seal impression, seal imprint, or registration certificate.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] 4294Guho721 decided Feb. 8, 1962 (No. 7202, No. 126(17) 248 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (64A4868) in the first instance.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's legal representative shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage as the mortgagee's defendant on April 20, 1964 on March 20, 1964, the contract bond amount of KRW 200,000 due date of payment of KRW 200,000 as of March 20, 1964, which was the Seoul Seongdong-dong District Court No. 169 on March 21, 1964 as to the 11st unit of 11, 1964.

The judgment was sought that the costs of the lawsuit should be assessed against the defendant.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative revoked the original judgment and sought a judgment identical with the purport of the claim.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the above act of establishing a mortgage on the real estate owned by the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1") was invalid on the ground that the non-party 1 had no dispute between the parties, and that the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the non-party 2 was recorded on the non-party 1's behalf, and that the non-party 2's testimony and testimony could be acknowledged by the non-party 1's testimony, the defendant's act of establishing a mortgage on the non-party 1's behalf of the non-party 1 cannot be viewed as an act of establishing a mortgage on the non-party 2's behalf of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's allegation that the non-party 2's above act of establishing a mortgage on the non-party 1's own real estate constitutes a valid act of establishing a mortgage on the non-party 1's own real estate and the non-party 2's allegation that the non-party 3's above act of establishing a mortgage.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)