Whether a representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established in case where a legal act is done under the name of the principal by deceiving the person as the principal.

The expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act requires, explicitly or implicitly, the fact that a representative acts on behalf of a principal, or engages in any other conduct than his/her authority with the intention of representation, and does not indicate such representation by means of deception, and in cases where, on his/her own behalf, a person deceptions the name of the principal as if he/she was the principal and thereby directly engages in any legal act under the name of the principal, the above Article 126 cannot be applied unless there are any special circumstances.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

More than 10

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na368 delivered on December 13, 1973

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Attorney Park Young-chul,

In light of the above legal principles as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1-4 without dispute in the grounds of the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the non-party's name was similar to that of the plaintiff's name on the 29th day of the same month following the completion of inheritance registration under the name of the plaintiff such as the plaintiff's seal certificate and certificate of personal seal impression, etc., the plaintiff's personal seal certificate and certificate of seal impression Nos. 50,000 won should be borrowed from the defendant at the time of repayment of the defendant's real estate at the expiration of 5% of interest, and the non-party's testimony, which is the witness of the court below, the non-party should take the procedure of inheritance registration of the real estate inherited by the plaintiff during 1969.10, and the non-party's assertion that the plaintiff's name was similar to that of the plaintiff's title, and thus, the court below reversed the judgment of the court below that it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the judgment against the plaintiff.

In comparison with the record and the original judgment, the court below generally recognized the above facts, and applied the provision of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, but originally, it is required that the representative under the provision of the same Act explicitly or explicitly expresses the fact that he acts on behalf of the principal, or does an act other than his authority with the intention of representation. In this case, the court below decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in order to re-examine and determine this point, and in case where the principal act was done on his own by using the name and deceiving himself as he is the principal, and thus, it cannot be applied with the above provision of Article 126, unless there are special circumstances, even though the original judgment cannot be applied to the expression representation under the above Article 126, and it is therefore erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, and thus, the original judgment cannot be reversed and applied.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)