Cases recognizing a representation in excess of power;

The check of this section applies in cases where there is no relationship between the juristic act at issue and the power of representation granted.

Article 110 of the Gu Residents Act, Article 126 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea Maritime Research Institute, a Incorporated Foundation

Seoul High Court Decision 4294 Civil Gong1857 delivered on February 21, 1963, the Seoul District Court Decision 2007

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, with respect to the plaintiffs' assertion that the legal act of the non-party 1 constitutes a check agent in excess of authority, the court below held that the above non-party 1 was the general affairs of the new school university and the employees of the above non-party 2, and recognized that the defendant foundation granted the non-party 1 the authority to enter into a contract for the same kind of forest land and forest land work with the non-party 2, while recognizing that the non-party 1 was granted the authority to enter into the contract with the non-party 2, the defendant foundation did not act as a check agent for the non-party 1, and it cannot be viewed as a justifiable reason to believe that the non-party 1 was able to act as a legal act on behalf of the ordinary person on the ground that the non-party 1 had a document related to the sale, such as a certificate or power of attorney, without holding a letter of delegation

However, the above decision of the court below cannot be inconsistent with the above, and if the non-party 1 was granted the authority to conclude a contract for forest and field work with the reduction Gong, etc. as recognized by the court below, it is not sufficient for the non-party 1 to act as the representative of the defendant foundation, and Article 110 (Article 126 of the former Civil Code) of the former Civil Code applies even in the case where there is no relationship between the legal act at issue and the delegated authority, so if the plaintiffs knew that the non-party 1 had the authority to conclude a contract with the above reduction Gong, and if the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 had the authority to conclude a contract with the defendant foundation, using the official seal of the chairperson of the defendant foundation and the private person, and delivered the certificate of personal seal impression certificate resolution of the board of directors, etc., even if the documents were forged, if the plaintiffs knew the fact, it cannot be said that the non-party 1 had the authority to do the legal act at issue as above, and therefore, it cannot be justified.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by omitting an explanation of the grounds for appeal.

Judge Lee Young-chul(Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court