1. Whether the presentation of a certificate of seal imprint can be deemed as the granting of a basic right of representation;

The certificate of seal impression is used as a method of confirmation attached to the seal use, and it is not used as a method of proof only by itself, and it is not used as a method of proof.

Articles 126 and 125 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant Kim Byung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na283 delivered on December 15, 1977

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant et al. are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

According to the judgment of the court below, after compiling each evidence of his employment, the court below acknowledged that the non-party, who is the plaintiff's doctor, sold this real estate in 4,00,000 won to the defendants, forged the application form for the registration of transfer of the plaintiff's power certificate, etc., and obtained the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal from the plaintiff on October 16, 1968, and forged the plaintiff's seal without the plaintiff's consent and used it as a certificate for the sale of this real estate from the plaintiff on November 5, 1968, and suggested the plaintiff's power of representation as if he obtained the certificate of proxy from the plaintiff on November 5, 1968. The court below rejected the above facts against the rules of evidence that the non-party, who is the plaintiff's doctor, forged the application form for the registration of transfer of this real estate to the plaintiff's power of proxy certificate, etc. after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party on December 4, 1968.

In conclusion, we cannot accept the argument of the lower court on the ground that the lower court did not err by citing facts contrary to the lower court’s approval based on the evidence duly rejected, but did not err by misapprehending the lower court’s fact-finding as an item of the same set of the Defendants.

With respect to Section 2:

A certificate of seal imprint is used to verify that the seal used in the document preparation is identical to that of the plaintiff's own seal imprint in advance, and it is generally used to verify that the seal used in the document is identical to that of the plaintiff's own seal imprint. The certificate of seal imprint is used as a method of confirmation attached to the use of the seal, and it is not used as a method of proving it. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the delivery of the seal imprint is an act to grant a certain right of representation. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party is not an act to forge the plaintiff's seal imprint (No. 2) by forging the plaintiff's seal imprint, and the plaintiff's certificate of seal imprinted the plaintiff's seal imprinted as the plaintiff's agent and sold this real estate to the defendants as the plaintiff's agent. Thus, this fact alone is justified in rejecting the defendants' assertion as to the expression representation, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of an expression agent as pointed out therein.

Therefore, the Defendants’ instant appeal is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench regarding the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)