A. The meaning of major facts subject to the trial

B. Whether the assertion on the representation of the right is included in the assertion (negative)

(a) Only the principal facts alleged by the parties in the pleading are subject to a trial, and the term “principal facts” refers to facts constituting the elements of a substantive law which generates the legal effect.

B. While the validity of the power of representation granted by the principal to his/her representative takes effect by the validity of the power of representation, despite the absence of the power of representation in the expression agency, the law has so far the effect of the original invalid act in order to protect the opposite contractual party and to maintain the safety of transaction, so the nature of the unauthorized representation is not converted into that of the acting representative. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the facts constituting the elements of the two are different, that is, the principal facts are different. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the assertion of the acting representative belonging to the acting representative is included in the assertion of the acting representative.

A. Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act: Articles 114 and 129 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Na1609 delivered on June 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the records, the plaintiff's assertion in this lawsuit that the plaintiff purchased the building of this case from the non-party, who is the representative of the defendant, and paid the price to the plaintiff later, and the defendant is obligated to return the above purchase price to the plaintiff, and that the sale of the above non-party constitutes an expression agency. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that, before the plaintiff purchased the building of this case, the defendant already terminated the delegation of the right to represent the sale of the building of this case to the above non-party, the sale of the above non-party is an act of unauthorized Agency after the extinguishment of the right to represent, and further, there is no evidence that the plaintiff believed that the plaintiff has the right to represent

Under the premise that the non-party's assertion about the representation is included in the plaintiff's proposal that he is the defendant's representative, the latter part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the burden of proof as to the representation.

However, only the principal facts alleged by the parties in the pleading refer to the facts which constitute the elements of a substantive law that generates the legal effect, and there is no difference in that the representative based on the power of representation or the effect of the representative act by a third party belongs to the principal, but in the case of the representative, the above legal effect takes place by the power of representation granted by the principal to his/her representative, while in the case of the representative, even though the representative does not have the power of representation, the act has the effect of the original invalid act in order to protect the other party and maintain the transaction safety, so the nature of the unauthorized Representation is deemed to be constituted, so it does not change into the representative, so the fact constitutes the constituent elements of both parties, namely, the principal facts cannot be viewed to be different.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the assertion on the acting representation contains the assertion on the acting representation, and as long as there is no other assertion on the acting representation, the court does not need to examine and determine whether the acting representation is established or not. The opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 64Da1082 Decided November 30, 1964 should be discarded.

Therefore, in this case, the Plaintiff did not assert the assertion as to the representation until the conclusion of the pleadings in the court below. Therefore, the court below did not need to decide whether to establish the representation, as long as the Nonparty was determined as an unauthorized representative. The part of the court below regarding the representation in writing is unnecessary, and it would not affect the conclusion of the judgment even if there is a permit prior to the burden of proof, such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the above argument is groundless.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

Upon examining the evidence admitted by the court below in accordance with the records, we find that the court below's decision did not err by violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of appeal, since the delegation contract of the right to purchase the building of this case to the non-party to the non-party was already terminated before the sales contract of this case was concluded by the plaintiff.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young