[1] The method of determining the parties to a contract where the actor entered into the contract under another person's name

[2] The determination of parties to a contract where a contract is concluded through an agent

[1] As to who is a party to a contract where an actor, who is a principal of a contract, committed a juristic act in the name of another person, shall be determined in accordance with the consent of the actor and the other party. If the intent of the actor and the other party are in accord, then the other party shall be determined in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract, if there is any difference between the actor and the other party, then the other party shall be determined in accordance with whom the actor and the nominal owner,

[2] Where a party to a contract executes a contract through an agent, if the other party to the contract agrees to conclude the contract with the principal through the agent, the other party is the party to the contract regardless of the existence or absence of representative authority of the agent.

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 114 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da3632 delivered on March 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1551), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4912 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3584), Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1011), Supreme Court Decision 99Da7183 delivered on June 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1500), Supreme Court Decision 200Da3897 delivered on May 29, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1455)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Il General Law, Attorney Maximum Conflict of Law)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2002Na48862 delivered on July 4, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to who is a party to a contract in cases where an actor who executes a contract was engaged in a juristic act in the name of another person, in which case the actor and the other party agree with each other, the parties to the contract shall first be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the actor and the other party. If the other party does not coincide with each other, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and details of the contract, if the other party does not coincide with each other, then the party shall be determined in accordance with which the actor and the nominal owner should understand as the party to the contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4912 delivered on September 29, 195, 200Da3897 delivered on May 29, 200).

Therefore, if the other party to the contract agrees to conclude the contract with the principal through the agent in the case of concluding the contract through the agent, the other party and the principal are the party to the contract regardless of the existence of the representative authority of the agent.

As acknowledged by the court below, the non-party, who is his own child, indicated that the ownership transfer registration is made under the name of the defendant, and entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff as the lessee, and the plaintiff was the intention to enter into the lease contract with the defendant as the owner of the housing of this case. Thus, when entering into the lease contract of this case, the non-party and the plaintiff as the agent shall be the party to the lease contract of this case. Thus, the defendant and the plaintiff shall be the party to the lease of this case.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the parties to the lease contract of this case were the defendant and the plaintiff, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of parties.

2. After recognizing the facts based on the employment evidence, the lower court recognized that the Defendant comprehensively granted the Nonparty, his father, the Nonparty, the Nonparty, the right to use his name, and the right to conduct the said legal act on his behalf, in doing any legal act such as the purchase, management, and disposal of real estate in connection with the real estate brokerage and development business, and determined that the Nonparty was acting on behalf of the Defendant as part of the contract and the instant lease agreement.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the granting of the power of representation or in the incomplete hearing.

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)