Acts of joint and several guarantee for the family power between husband and wife and the other person's obligation;

Although husband and wife have the authority to act on behalf of each other with respect to daily home affairs, it is a precedent that grants the husband the right of representation necessary for the joint and several sureties to the act of bearing obligations to the husband. Therefore, the wife has a special authority to act on behalf of the husband for the above joint and several sureties.

Articles 827 and 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da2218 delivered on March 10, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 5897 delivered on March 10, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18Da223 delivered on March 10, 197, Supreme Court Decision 126(58)253 delivered on March 1

Bank of Korea

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap2057) in the first instance trial

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

(2)The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(3) The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

The plaintiff shall reduce or amend the purport of the claim at the trial of the court and the defendant shall jointly and severally with the non-party 1 corporation to pay 783,588 won to the plaintiff 731,482 won per annum from December 28, 1970 to 1972,16, 5% per annum from January 17, 197 to 30% per annum; 52,106 won per annum from January 28, 1970 to January 16, 1971; and 3% per annum from January 17, 1972 to March 17, 1972.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff, on November 2, 1970, entered into a monthly contract with the non-party 1,00,000 won in the current account with the non-party 1,00,000 won on the basis of his claim, the plaintiff entered into a joint and several surety agreement with the non-party 20,000 from the next day of the following month to the next day; the transplant shall be 2,00,000 per annum; the delayed compensation rate shall be 36,00 per annum; and the plaintiff shall not raise any objection against the transplantation and delay compensation of the above monthly loan; at that time, the defendant provided a joint and several surety for the non-party 2.

However, according to the above 1970.11.2 to 12.5 of the same year, the plaintiff used the seals and seals of the non-party 1 company and the non-party 2's seal and the non-party 3's seal and seal were affixed to the non-party 1 company's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's witness's non-party 1's counter-2's.

However, according to the above facts, it can be known that the non-party 2 believed to be used for a simple business purpose without any prior think that it would be used for the defendant's obligation upon the request of the non-party 4 living together, and delivered the seal the defendant's house to the non-party 4 in response to his request. Thus, the validity of the contract for joint and several several liability cannot be affected by the defendant. Further, it is presumed that the non-party 2 did not confirm the specific place of use of the seal at the time of delivery of the above seal, and even if it is presumed that the non-party 3 had the intention to execute the contract for joint and several liability based only on the external form arising from the arbitrary seal pressure or pressure of the non-party 3's above seal, even if it is presumed that the husband has the authority to act as proxy for the daily house, but it is equivalent to this case's case, so it is necessary to grant the right of representation necessary for the defendant's act of joint and several liability to the non-party 2, who is the defendant's expression of the agreement or the contract for the defendant's objective reason.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit is correct, and thus, the original judgment which differs from this conclusion is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is with merit. Therefore, the original judgment is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and the judgment is rendered as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

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