The case holding that Gap, other than himself, formed a sales promotion committee and heard Eul's signature and seal on the written consent that Eul shall consent to the sale if the price is a certain level, and Eul shall have Eul signed and sealed the written consent to the sale, the case holding that Eul granted Eul's right to sell the tenement house on his behalf, except in special circumstances.

The case holding that Gap, other than his own, formed a sales promotion committee and heard Eul's signature and seal on the written consent that Eul consents to the sale of a house at a certain price, and provided Eul's signature and seal on the written consent, barring any special circumstances, Eul granted Eul the right to sell the tenement house on his behalf, except in case where Eul had signed the written consent.

Article 114 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na18797 delivered on June 2, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant granted the right to sell the above apartment house owned by the defendant to the non-party 1 on behalf of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3's testimony in light of the following facts, and it is not sufficient to accept the following facts, and there is no other evidence to recognize the above facts in light of the circumstance that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's statement of consent No. 2, and the owners of 14 units of the non-party 4 were old building constructed around August 1979, and it is difficult to repair the above non-party 1's house on the ground that the non-party 4 and the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 4's general sales contract were signed and sold to the non-party 1's owner of the above non-party 4's house on a 80-party 1's comprehensive sale agreement, and the defendant's remaining owners of the above non-party 1 and the above apartment house were also sold.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3, and witness testimony of the non-party 6 and the non-party 7, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below, although all the non-party 1's owners other than the defendant constitute the apartment house sale promotion committee and appointed the above non-party 1 as the owner of the apartment house, and let the chairperson do so, the above non-party 1 do so, which is the owner of the apartment house, on Jan. 7, 1990, and delivered the above non-party 1's consent form to sell the house at a price of 80,000,000 won per household (the evidence No. 2-1) on behalf of the non-party 1's owner and the non-party 1's consent form to sell the above apartment house on the same day, the court below's decision that the non-party 1's consent form and the non-party 1's consent form on behalf of the above non-party 1's owner and the above non-party 1's consent form.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)