The fact that there is a domestic authority of representation cannot be said to be constituted by an expression agent in excess of the authority.

Only the fact that there is a domestic authority of representation may not be established as a proxy in excess of the authority without any other circumstances.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da633 delivered on June 24, 1969 decided March 10, 1970; 64Da1244 delivered on December 22, 1964

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3392 delivered on October 23, 1970

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the general social norms, it is possible for the court below to find out that the non-party 2 was not entitled to exercise the right of representation necessary for the establishment of the right of representation on the non-party 1 to the non-party's own property or for legal act which constitutes the cause of each registration. Thus, if the non-party 2 did the above act without a special authority, it should have a domestic authority of representation on the non-party 1, and there should be objective circumstances to justify the other party's belief that the non-party 2 was entitled to represent the act of representation on the non-party 4, because the non-party 2 had no authority of representation on the non-party 6, and the non-party 2 had no authority of representation on the non-party 4, the court below found that the non-party 2 had no authority of representation on the non-party 4, the non-party 6, who was under his own property on the non-party 2's own property on the non-party 2's own property on the non-party 2's own property on the plaintiff 2's own property.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon