Contracts by Unauthorized Representative and Method of Ratification

The ratification of a contract by an unauthorized representative is only effective by the principal’s declaration of ratification to the other party or unauthorized representative of the contract, and it is not recognized that the principal does not object to the other party or unauthorized representative of the contract.

Article 113 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Byung-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Oiju Attorney Yang-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul District Court of the first instance, Seoul High Court of the second instance, 53 civil defense 139 delivered on October 20, 1953

The main body is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's first instance court's assertion that the defendant's defendant's 1's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son'.

그러나 소론 증인 박윤양 장만봉등의 증언에 의하여 소론 거시사실을 인정할 수 있다 하드래도 타에 피고의 소외 김옥련에 대한 소론 매매에 관한 위임의 의사표시 또는 기외의 법률행위에 관한 대리권 수여사실을 인정할 만한 사적이 뵈이지 않은 본건에 있어서는 동거시 사실만으로서는 소론 위임사실 또는 표현대리사실을 인정하기에 부족함은 기록에 비추어 분명하다. 원판결에 의하면 원심 역동일취지로서 동 증인의 증언의 실질적 증거력을 부정한 의미를 간취할 수 있으니 원판결은 정당한 것이요 이와 반대의 견해를 가진 논지는 이유없다.

In light of the above facts, No. 2 of the Reasons for Appeal No. 2, as to the ratification of the sale contract of this case by Defendant Obari-con Kim Jong-ok and Defendant Won-ok, the sale of this case between Defendant Obari-ok was conducted on January 8, 4285 in the short term, and after this case was brought about during May, 4286 in the short term, it was obvious that the Plaintiff had no intention to sell this case, and that the Plaintiff had no objection to the sale of this case after this case was sold to the Plaintiff at the first instance court of the 20th Ebari-gu, and that the Plaintiff had no objection to the sale of this case by viewing that the Plaintiff had no intention to sell this case after this case was sold after this case was purchased at the second instance of the 20th Ebari-do, and that the Defendant had no objection to the sale of this case. According to the legal reasoning that the Plaintiff had no objection to the sale of this case at the time of the 2nd Ebari-si.

However, it is essential that the ratification of a contract by an unauthorized representative will take effect by declaring the intention of ratification to the other party to the contract or to the unauthorized representative. Only if the principal knows the fact of the contract and does not raise any objection, it is insufficient to do so. Accordingly, the testimony of the witness in the lawsuit is insufficient to recognize that the defendant did not raise an objection by know the fact of sale and purchase of the principal of the plaintiff, and only that alone, it is insufficient to recognize the ratification of the principal of the plaintiff. Accordingly, according to the original judgment, the purport of rejecting the letter of ratification is clearly the same reason in the original judgment and the purport of rejecting the letter of ratification is clearly the same as that of the original judgment, and there is no ground to

The above ground of appeal No. 3 is that even if the defendant's owner's right to set aside is not an abuse of the right to set aside, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on abuse of rights. In other words, the court below's decision that the defendant's owner knows that there was no objection, such as low-water, even though he knows that the purchase and sale between Kim Kok and Kok was made, it is difficult to predict whether the Seoul would sell the house at the time of the purchase and sale of the house because it is difficult to predict whether the sale of the house was done after the after the death of the plaintiff's owner, and if it is so admitted, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's purchase and sale of the house is a serious mountain to deny the right to set aside if it is difficult for him to do so. In addition, it is hard to see that the plaintiff's purchase and sale of the house is an abuse of his duty to set aside after leaving the house at the time of the sale and sale of the house after the expiration of a long period of time.

However, according to the records, the Plaintiff does not have any form that asserts the fact of the exercise of the right to set aside in the judgment of the court below. Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot be employed as a result of the controversy over the illegality of the judgment of the court below, claiming the following facts in the final appeal. As such, the instant appeal on the grounds that the grounds are groundless, and the costs of the lawsuit are borne by applying Article 89, Article 95, of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)