A case which is recognized as ratified by the principal as to the loan contract for consumption concluded by an unauthorized agent;

If an unauthorized representative, as a part of the borrowed money, has repaid debts to the non-party secured by a provisional registration of the real estate owned by the principal and cancelled the provisional registration, and if the principal, who was urged to postpone the repayment on the date of repayment, requested the creditor to pay the borrowed money, the act of unauthorized representative shall be deemed ratified by the principal.

Article 130 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Ma2309, 2310 decided Jan. 30, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 10363 decided Oct. 10, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 21 ① citizen62; Decision 130(8)258 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap2810) in the first instance trial

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) On December 12, 1970, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) performed the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership due to the sale on March 11, 1971 and ordered the real estate to be registered on December 11, 1971, on the basis of the provisional registration of the preservation of the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the purchase and sale promise, which was made by the Sungdong District Court of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 12, 1970.

(3) The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim is dismissed.

(4) All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) in the first and second instances.

(5) A provisional execution may be effected only with respect to the portion of the master plan in paragraph (2).

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), as the principal lawsuit, is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer due to the promise to sell and purchase on December 12, 1970, which was completed by the Sungdong District Court of Seoul, Sungdong on December 12, 1970 as the registration office of Sungdong District on December 10, 1970, for the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer due to the right to claim ownership transfer due to the promise, and the real estate, which was completed by the above registration office No. 55030 on December 12, 1970 on December 10, 1970.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the defendant's attorney is seeking a judgment that the main lawsuit and the counterclaim shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and a declaration of provisional execution on the part of the title of the above real estate.

(1) Judgment on the part of the Plaintiff’s main claim

There is no dispute between the parties on the provisional registration of preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer and the fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage has been completed with respect to the real estate entered in the attached list.

In light of the above evidence No. 2-3 (written opinion of the plaintiff, No. 4-1 (written evidence), No. 3-3 (written indictment), No. 7-1 (written evidence), No. 7-2 (written evidence No. 1), and No. 1-2 (written evidence No. 4), and No. 5 (written evidence No. 4), and No. 6 (written evidence No. 5) were issued to the plaintiff for the purpose of using the above written evidence No. 1's signature No. 5 (written evidence No. 1) and the remaining written evidence No. 1-6 (written evidence No. 1) were non-party 2's signature No. 1 and the remaining written evidence No. 1-6 (written evidence No. 1) were non-party 2's signature No. 1 and the court below's decision No. 99 was delivered to the non-party 2 for the purpose of using the above evidence No. 3's signature No.

Thus, the non-party 4 provided real estate as security and borrowed money from the defendant. However, as can be seen earlier, the plaintiff confirmed the act of this non-party's non-party's act of acting as the representative of this case. Thus, the non-party 4's act of acting as the representative of this case will eventually affect the plaintiff.

Therefore, since each of the above registrations on this case was made on the basis of a pre-sale agreement and a contract to establish a collateral security that the plaintiff shall be liable, it cannot be null and void. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the above provisional registration and the registration of establishment of collateral security against the defendant are null and void on the premise that the cause of the registration is null and void

(2) Judgment on the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim

On December 10, 1970, the defendant asserted as a counter-claim. The interest amounting to 500,000 won through the non-party 4, which is the plaintiff's agent (including acting as an expression agent and ratification of acting as an agent), shall be leased to the plaintiff on March 10, 1971 with the maturity date of 60%, and the plaintiff shall make a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim the sale of the real estate on December 10, 1970 to secure the performance of the above obligation. If the plaintiff fails to repay the above loan by the maturity date, the defendant shall make a provisional registration to secure the right to claim the sale of the real estate under the name of the non-party 4 as of the date following the above maturity date without a separate declaration of intention to complete the sale and purchase, and if the plaintiff agrees to transfer the ownership of the real estate to the defendant immediately after the maturity date of the above provisional registration to secure the ownership of the real estate under the name of the non-party 10-party 4 as at the expiration date of the above obligation.

Thus, unless there is a special reason, the plaintiff has a duty to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership due to the sale on March 1971 on the basis of the provisional registration stated in the order (2) of this case to the defendant, and to specify that real estate.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiff's principal claim is just and dismissed. Since the defendant's counterclaim is legitimate, the original judgment that differs from this conclusion is improper, and the defendant's appeal is justified. Thus, the court below's judgment that differs from this conclusion is revoked by the original judgment pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and the judgment of provisional execution pursuant to Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs is determined as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the same Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice) and Noh Jeong-hee