If a person who has obtained a power of representation has done any juristic act other than that of representation in his own name, the principal’s liability.

Where a person who has been granted a power of representation performs any juristic act other than the power of representation in his own name, and the other party believed to be the principal and has justifiable grounds to believe that he is his own juristic act, the principal shall be liable to the other party for such juristic act.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2762 delivered on February 20, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 16 ① civil 97, Supreme Court Decision 74Da78 delivered on April 9, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10689Da10689, Supreme Court Decision 22 ② civil 137, Supreme Court Decision 250Da126255 delivered on April 25, 196, Court Gazette 488No7838 delivered on April 9, 1974

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (75Gahap166 delivered on July 1, 200)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant is demanding that the plaintiff should pay the expenses of the lawsuit on the ground of the provisional registration based on the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration, as the Daejeon District Court No. 9 of Jan. 9, 1975, which was about 1203 square meters (number 1 omitted) and 1414 square meters (number 2 omitted).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

On January 9, 1975, the provisional registration procedure for preserving the right to request the transfer of ownership is not in dispute between the parties, and it is difficult to reverse the above 1,203 square meters and 1,414 square meters (hereinafter this case's land) for the above 0-year real estate to the 10-year real estate for the above 10-year real estate, and the 5-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate and the 10-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate, and the 5-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate and the 10-year real estate under the name of the 10-year real estate under the name of the 5-year real estate owner and the 15-year real estate owner's real estate under the 1-year real estate.

In order to exercise the security right in time of war, the plaintiff's attorney argues that the act of establishing the provisional registration made by the document forged by the non-party 1 without any title (non-party 1's right of representation) is invalid registration. Thus, since the defendant's attorney argues that the act of establishing the provisional registration is invalid registration without any title, the defendant's attorney is unable to exempt the counter-party from liability for the juristic act in his own name if the counter-party believe that he is the principal's own legal act without indicating that he is a representative (the person to whom his right of representation has been granted) and the person to whom the right of representation has been delegated to do a juristic act for himself (the person to whom his right of representation has been granted) by obtaining his certificate of seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint from the non-party 1, and if the counter-party believe that he is the principal's legal act, it is difficult to exempt the non-party 1 from liability for the establishment of the provisional registration and the defendant's act of establishing the basic financial guarantee to the plaintiff.

If so, a defense dispute, which is the registration of invalidation without a ground for the above provisional registration, cannot be employed.

Next, Defendant’s legal representative asserts that: (a) the market price at the market price at the time of this case’s main use of the real estate was above KRW 7,00,000; (b) the registration of exhibition was set at a collateral of KRW 2,000,000; and (c) the Defendant’s promise of accord and satisfaction was null and void pursuant to Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act if the Defendant did not repay the borrowed loan after six months; (b) the Defendant’s legal representative held that: (c) the provisional registration procedure was already completed and the principal registration procedure was completed; and (d) the Plaintiff’s filing of the principal registration procedure was sought to execute the principal registration procedure in order to exercise the security right to obtain the repayment of the borrowed loan with the provisional registration as security; and (e) the Defendant, the debtor, is obligated to perform the principal registration procedure for the purpose of security, and thus, cannot be deemed null and void by Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the provisional registration procedure for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration, which was completed on January 9, 1975, with respect to the land of this case, on the ground of a pre-sale agreement on January 5, 1975. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court below that concluded is just and without merit, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the defendant and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Woo (Presiding Judge)