A. Whether the representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established in a case where a person deceptions his agent as if he was the principal and doing a legal act under his own name;

(b) A case where the legal principle of a apparent representation in excess of authority is applied to an act of establishing a mortgage contract by misrepresenting the principal and pretending him/her to do so;

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 acts other than his/her authority with his/her intention to act as an agent. In cases where an agent expresses or expresses his/her intention to act as an agent and instead, instead of expressing his/her intent to act as an agent, and in cases where an agent uses his/her name as if he/she was the principal and intended to engage in a juristic act under his/her name by deceiving him/her

(b) The case holding that it is justifiable to apply the legal principles of apparent representation in excess of authority to the act of concluding a mortgage-backed contract with a bank by misrepresenting an agent as the principal and pretending to be the principal

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na3324 delivered on November 5, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff led the non-party 1 on behalf of the plaintiff on September 16, 1982 that the plaintiff granted the authority to register the creation of a new mortgage on behalf of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 as a collateral security company, but this led to a violation of the truth and a mistake. The plaintiff's assertion that the testimony of the non-party 2 is insufficient to recognize that the confession is contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and that there is no other evidence to prove that the confession was caused by mistake. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

(2) The expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established when an agent expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal, or performs acts other than his/her authority with his/her agent's intent to act on behalf of the principal, and only when he/she knows his/her name as if he/she was the principal and induces him/herself to do a legal act under his/her own name, barring any special circumstance, the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act cannot be established. However, in this case, the court below held that the act of entering a mortgage contract of this case with the defendant bank by misrepresenting himself/herself using the plaintiff's resident registration certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, and certificate of right to registration delivered by the plaintiff and pretending the plaintiff himself/herself to act of establishing the mortgage contract of this case with the defendant bank on grounds as stated in its reasoning, the above legal principle of an expression agency beyond his/her authority is applied to the plaintiff, and it is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lawsuit.

(3) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 was entrusted with the act of registering the establishment of a mortgage with the non-party 1's resident registration certificate, personal seal impression (No. 24-4), and the defendant bank knew that the non-party 1 was the plaintiff himself/herself using the registration certificate concerning the real estate of this case, and the above non-party 1 was the defendant under the relevant documents prepared in the name of the plaintiff. The above measures of the court below are just and there are no errors of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence such as theory, and the seal impression and the right to register, the plaintiff's resident registration certificate is not the owner of the real estate or the person entrusted with the right to dispose of it by the owner, and it is hard to find that the non-party 1 was the owner of the above real estate or the non-party 1's resident registration certificate, and it is hard to find that the plaintiff's resident registration certificate and the non-party 1 was in possession of the above real estate as a personal or non-party 1's resident registration certificate.

Therefore, in this case, where the defendant cannot look at the circumstances to suspect that he is the owner of the real estate of this case in the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, the above documents and the plaintiff's seal imprint and resident registration certificate, and the person who intends to possess the above documents and the plaintiff's seal imprint and resident registration certificate and to offer the real estate of this case as security, and the court below's decision which rejected the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)