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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The sales contract is formed by an agreement between the parties on the transfer of the property right by the seller and the buyer's payment of the price in consideration of the agreement between the parties to transfer the property right and the other party to pay the price.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39594 Decided November 24, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, an act of granting a power of representation may be performed by an implied declaration of intent without an express expression of intent. A certain person’s act with an external appearance of an agent may be inferred by an implied declaration of intention. A certain person’s act with an authority of representation may be inferred by de facto neglect, such as where he/she knowingly does not object to the act without an objection.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant granted C the right of representation to conclude the instant sales contract.

① At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, C did not have a power of attorney, seal imprint, and seal imprint. The Plaintiff entered into a large amount of sales contract without directly verifying the Defendant’s intent.

On the other hand, it is very rare that the defendant, while entering into a large sales contract, awarded the right of representation only to telephone conversations to C who does not have any contact or any other body prior to that time.

② It appears that C plays a role as a broker, such as avoiding the purchase price between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

③ Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant had an approximate approach to the purchase price, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had an anticipated situation to determine the detailed matters through additional consultation and complete a sales contract.

④ At the above stage, only the fact that the Defendant informed C of his account number, is identical to the sales contract of this case.