The case holding that there is a justifiable reason to believe that there exists a right of representation on the termination of a lease contract and the receipt of deposit money for lease to a person who has obtained only a basic power of representation to perform a juristic act sublet a leased building.

The case holding that there is a justifiable reason to believe that there exists a right of representation on the termination of a lease contract and the receipt of deposit money for lease to a person who has obtained only a basic power of representation to perform a juristic act sublet a leased building.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Yu Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na237 delivered on November 3, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above 13,00,00 won for the lease contract of this case to the non-party 1 on August 3, 198 of the above 198 and the defendant's right to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to return the above 7th lease deposit to the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1's old 1's old 2nd 197's old 2nd 1984. The above 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1's old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1' old 1'.

In light of the records, we affirm the court below's decision that there is no evidence that the non-party 1 or the non-party 1 was entitled to terminate the lease contract of this case on behalf of the plaintiff and to receive the lease deposit, and there is no illegality as alleged in the arguments.

However, although the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 is not a dead person) did not receive the right of representation on the termination of the lease contract of this case and on the receipt of the deposit for lease, if the facts were as acknowledged by the court below, the non-party 1 obtained the basic power of representation to engage in legal acts sub-lease of the building of this case on behalf of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, according to the records, the non-party 1 found the leased building of this case to be mixed before the day of the lease contract and the non-party 1 introduced the non-party 1, who is not a real agent, as the above contract of this case, and the plaintiff knew that the non-party 1 was not responsible for the management of the leased building of this case on behalf of the plaintiff at the time of the above contract, and it was difficult to view that the non-party 1 did not receive the deposit money of this case from the non-party 1 to the above sub-lease contract of this case and that the defendant did not have any authority to sub-lease the building of this case within the time of sub-lease.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's letter of expression as an opposing opinion is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, and this constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)