Cases where it is recognized that the applicant granted the authority to appoint the respondent's representative;

If the respondent is unable to repay the debt after borrowing the money from the applicant, the applicant is a settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit, with respect to the security for which a provisional registration has already been made, where the respondent prepares a letter of delegation of a blank suit with the intention of appointing the respondent for the purpose of making the principal registration procedure easily, and where it is delivered to the applicant, the respondent is deemed to have granted the authority to appoint the respondent

Article 124 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da571 Decided June 24, 1969

Applicant

Respondent

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 79Na427 delivered on September 21, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the respondent (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the applicant (quasi-Appellant) filed an application against the respondent (quasi-Appellant) for the cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of real estate ownership transfer registration, etc. with the Seoul Civil District Court 78Da2041, which made the applicant's salary-in-law transfer as the attorney, and accordingly, a settlement between the Respondent's attorney-at-law and the Respondent's attorney-at-law's attorney at the meeting as the Respondent's attorney at the meeting as the Respondent's attorney at the time of receiving KRW 5,40,000 from the Respondent to April 6, 1978, and at the same time, the applicant received KRW 5,40,000 from the Respondent to the Respondent and received KRW 24, Dongdong-gu Seoul District Court ( Address omitted) and the coagu 1, 1977, which had been completed on December 28, 1977.

(2) If the respondent does not pay the above stated amount to the Respondent No. 1 on the Respondent No. 2 by the Respondent, the Respondent shall use the above stated statement No. 1 on the Respondent No. 2 and the above stated statement No. 2 on the Respondent No. 1 on the Respondent’s request for the above Respondent No. 1 on the premise that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the establishment of a protocol of settlement with the aim of real estate security for the purpose of the above provisional registration No. 1 on the Respondent No. 2 on the Respondent’s request for the above Respondent No. 3 on the Respondent’s request for the above Respondent No. 9 on the Respondent’s behalf of the Respondent No. 2 on the Respondent’s behalf of the Respondent, and the Respondent’s request for the above Respondent No. 2 on the Respondent’s behalf of the Respondent No. 9 on the Respondent’s behalf of the Respondent No. 2 on the Respondent’s behalf of the above Respondent No. 50 on the Respondent No.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)