The case where there is no justifiable reason in believing that there exists a right of representation;

In cases where a representative act was conducted in the previous agency or has not been conducted as an agent for minor matters repeatedly or repeatedly, the words and seals of a self-name agent and stamps. Where there are circumstances in which it is impossible to believe only a legal document and make transactions, or where there are other similar circumstances to believe that there is a right of representation in consideration of the economic benefits, etc. caused by the relevant act, it shall not be deemed that there is no negligence on the part of a person who has participated in his/her seal or document and that there is a right of representation

Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 61Da721 delivered on February 8, 1962 delivered on March 3, 1957 (Supreme Court Decision 10Da396,387 delivered on February 8, 1962)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (75 Gohap874)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,300,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from June 14, 1975 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The same shall apply to the order.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative, on March 30, 1975, lent KRW 1,30,00 to Nonparty 1 and delivered one promissory note issued on April 10 of the same year to Nonparty 1 for the purpose of paying the above amount to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s interest rate of KRW 1,30,00 and KRW 1,00,00 to Nonparty 3 for the purpose of paying the above amount to Nonparty 1. The Plaintiff’s interest rate of KRW 1,30 and KRW 1,00,00,00 for the above amount to Nonparty 1’s interest rate of KRW 7,00,00,000 for the above amount to Nonparty 1’s interest rate of KRW 1,30,00,00 for the above amount to Nonparty 1’s interest rate of KRW 7,00,00,000 for the above amount to Nonparty 1’s interest rate of KRW 1,30,000,00,000 for the above promissorysory note.

In other words, the plaintiff's legal representative's previous signature and seal is not a 1975.4.10, and the non-party 1 agreed to pay the above amount of 1,30,000 won to the plaintiff as the representative of the plaintiff or the non-party 1's previous signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1's legal representative's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1's legal representative's previous signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's non-party's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's non-party 1's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative'.

In addition, on April 22, 1975, the plaintiff's attorney asserted that the defendant ratified the act of non-party 1's act of representation on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party 1, but that part of the testimony of the court below and the non-party 3 of the party witness to the trial cannot be trusted in light of the testimony of the non-party 4, 5, and the non-party 1 of the party witness to the trial, and there is no evidence to support

Thus, the plaintiff's objection claim for payment of 1,300,000 won borrowed from the plaintiff by the non-party 1 was without the obligation of the defendant to pay it. Thus, since the plaintiff's objection claim for payment of 1,30,000 won is without merit, it is improper to conclude the original judgment differently, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the payment of litigation costs, since it is improper to dismiss it.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)