In cases where the act of expression representation is constituted, whether it is possible to reduce his/her responsibility by applying the legal principle of comparative negligence by analogy.

In the event of the act of expression representation, the principal should be fully responsible for the act of expression representation, and even if there is negligence on the other party, the principal's liability cannot be mitigated by applying the legal principle of offsetting negligence by analogy.

Articles 126 and 396 of the Civil Act

Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation

Defendant 1 and two Defendants (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na3942 delivered on April 13, 1994

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

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is clear that the court below did not recognize the same facts as alleged in the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine whether the judgment below erred by misconception of the facts against the rules of evidence.

2. If the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, the court below held that the defendant's act of expression in excess of the above non-party 1's authority as the principal's act of expression is somewhat insufficient, but it is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of expression, such as the theory of reasoning, since the court below's conclusion of the joint and several guarantee contract of this case does not constitute an act of a nature that cannot be an act of expression in excess of authority, since the non-party 1's act of a sub-agent who is appointed by an agent without the right of reproduction is designated as a joint and several guarantee and issued by the principal, and all documents, such as the defendants' certificate of personal seal impression, property tax certificate, copy of resident registration certificate, etc., as well as the defendants' seal imprint are held, and the defendant's act of expression in excess of the authority of the above non-party 1's act of expression, and therefore, it cannot be accepted, and the precedents of party members cited in the theory of lawsuit cannot be invoked in this case.

In the event that the act of expression agency is constituted, the principal shall be fully liable for the act of expression agency, and even if there is any negligence on the other party, the principal’s liability may not be mitigated by applying the legal principle of comparative negligence, and Article 3(2) and (3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides that if the business operator fails to explain the contents of the terms to the customer, the terms and conditions cannot be asserted as the content of the contract. As such, the Plaintiff did not inform the Defendants of the fact that the said non-party 1 entered into the joint and several guarantee contract of this case, and the said contract cannot be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 3(2) and (3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. In addition, since the Defendants did

3. All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)