The starting point of counting the right to claim damages against unauthorized representative

The right to claim damages against the unauthorized representative is in accordance with the choice of the other party when the unauthorized representative fails to prove his/her power of representation and is unable to obtain ratification of his/her right, and the starting point of the statute of limitations of the right to claim is to run from the time when the right to

Articles 135 and 166 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1156 Decided August 24, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 63Da23 decided Aug. 22, 1963 (Daad 6047, Supreme Court Decision 11Du83 decided Feb. 83, 198, Civil Code No. 1359 decided Aug. 24, 1965) (Supreme Court Decision 181Daad 1813, Supreme Court Decision 13Du289 decided Aug. 24, 196, Supreme Court Decision 135Mod 259)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court of the first instance (61 Ghana560)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 310,000 won to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts, one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant. A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (2).

The defendant shall pay 653,700 won to the plaintiff.

The defendant's attorney's claim is dismissed because the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The defendant (Appellant) representative shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's agent is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The facts that Non-Party 2 succeeded to it as a minor at the time of death on September 23, 1947 (the birth on March 14, 1940) and that Non-Party 3, the mother of parental authority, was the legal representative of the non-party 3. There is no dispute between the parties. In full view of the entries of No. 11 (the examination report on Non-Party 4) without dispute over the establishment and the statements of No. 10 (the sales contract) which can be recognized by the result of verification conducted by the court below and the statements of Non-Party 3 and 5 of the court below, it is difficult for the defendant to reverse the above facts that the non-party 1 died and the non-party 3 and the non-party 5 of the court below's oral argument, and it is hard to find that the non-party 2, who was registered as the above deceased on Oct. 24, 1947, which was the legal representative of the plaintiff, the above non-party 3, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff made the testimony (the above evidence).

Therefore, the defendant is a non-exclusive agent. If the defendant fails to prove his/her right of representation, and if he/she fails to obtain ratification of his/her right, he/she shall be liable for the performance of the contract or for damages in accordance with the plaintiff's choice. In full view of the statement No. 1 and No. 10 (a sales contract) and the testimony of the witness and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the plaintiff, who completed the purchase price as of Nov. 14, 1947, which is the execution date of the purchase and sale contract, and demanded the defendant to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership immediately after he/she completed the procedure for transfer of ownership due to inheritance as of Aug. 12, 1959, the non-party No. 2, who did not perform the procedure, sold to the non-party No. 10 and sold to the non-party No. 10 on March 20, 1960, he/she could not obtain confirmation of the right of representation from the non-party No. 2.

In this case, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages in accordance with the plaintiff's choice after March 20, 1960 where the registration of ownership transfer has been made to the non-party 10. The plaintiff and the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 living in the vicinity. The defendant knew that the defendant did not have the right of representation. Even if the plaintiff did not know that the defendant did not have the right of representation, there is no evidence sufficient to recognize it, but there is no evidence sufficient to recognize it. According to the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 3 of the court below, according to the defendant's testimony of the non-party 3 of the non-party 3 of the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant living together with the non-party 2, who was living in the deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 3 who was living with the non-party 3 who had yet to have the right of representation. In this case,

In addition, the defendant's right to claim damages in this case is due on November 14, 1947. The plaintiff can claim the performance of the contract or the damages claim in this case since the expiration of the prescription period, but the right to claim damages in this case's non-authorized representative does not prove his power of representation and it comes to different from the other party's choice when the non-authorized representative did not obtain ratification. The starting point of the statute of limitations of the right to claim damages in this case is that the plaintiff's right to claim damages in this case should start from March 20, 1960 because it is obvious that the plaintiff's right to claim damages in this case should start from March 20, 1960 because it is proved that the expiration date of prescription period will start from March 20, 1970. Thus, there is no ground for the defendant's above dispute.

Therefore, with respect to the amount of damages caused by the defendant's unauthorized representation, the liability of compensation for damages by the plaintiff's unauthorized representative includes the other party's active damages and passive damages. The plaintiff lost this real estate which would have been entitled to acquire if the contract was valid due to the fact that the defendant's act of this case was an unauthorized representation, and the 22th of the building constructed on that ground would have to be immediately removed, and the above real estate was already transferred to the 10th of 6th of 1961 to the 10th of 1961 to the 10th of 1961 to the 20th of 196th of 1961 to the 10th of 196th of 1961 to the 10th of 196th of 1961 to the 10th of 1961 to the 10th of 196th of 1961 to the 190th of 1963rd of 192.

In this case, the plaintiff suffered losses of 310,000 won due to the defendant's unauthorized representation. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified within the above recognized limit, and the remainder of the claim is actual, so it shall be dismissed. Thus, the defendant's appeal against the original judgment with different conclusions is justified.

Therefore, this Court decides as ordered by applying Article 3 of the Act on Temporary Measures for Civil Procedure Article 385, Article 96, Article 89, Article 92, and Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge)