A married couple's right of normal home and expression by proxy;

Although husband and wife have the authority to act on behalf of each other with respect to daily home affairs, it is an example that the husband disposes of the real estate owned by the husband or provides it as security and confers the power of representation necessary for the registration procedure. Therefore, the establishment of an expression agency cannot be recognized unless there are objective circumstances to believe that the husband has granted the power of representation.

Articles 827, 126, 125, and 129 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da633 delivered on June 24, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 556 Decided 69Da633 delivered on June 24, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 17Du249 delivered on June 24, 196, and Article 126(53)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court (67Ga1625)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

Defendant 1, as to the plaintiff's land 10 square meters in Busan Dong-dong (number 1 omitted) and 9 square meters in the same (number 2 omitted), was received from the Busan District Court on Mar. 26, 1966.3. 23, 1966. The procedure for cancellation registration of provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to purchase and sale reservation, and the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration due to sale on Sep. 23, 196.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On March 23, 1966, Busan District Court received No. 6159 on March 26, 1966, which was the original owner of 10 square meters and 10 square meters of the first Dong-dong (number 1 omitted) and 9 square meters of the same (number 2 omitted) site, and on March 23, 1966, the provisional registration was made under the name of the defendant for the purpose of preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to purchase and sale reservation between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, and on February 23, 1967, the ownership transfer registration was made under the name of the defendant on the ground of sale on January 24, 1967, and on January 24, 1967, there was no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff's attorney, as the reason for seeking cancellation of each of the above registrations under the name of the defendant 1, was that the above real estate was not purchased or sold as stated in the above facts, and that the non-party 1, who was the plaintiff's wife at the time, borrowed 300,00 won for the plaintiff's seal and forged documents related to the above registration to use it as the defendant's name, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above registration was invalid as well as that of the defendant 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party 1's non-party's non-party's non-party 1's non-party.

In light of the above facts, although the defendant, etc. did not have the authority to represent the plaintiff in the case of the non-party 1's so-called "the above non-party 1", he was not entitled to represent the plaintiff as his husband at the time of the above act, and it was true that the non-party 1 raised funds on behalf of the plaintiff and leased the land to the non-party 7, and the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 did not have the authority to represent the plaintiff as his husband at the time of the above act, and that the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 had no authority to represent the plaintiff as his husband at the time of the above act, and that the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 had no authority to represent the plaintiff as his husband at the time of the above act, and that the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 had the authority to represent the plaintiff at the time of the above act, and thus, it was deemed that the non-party 1 had the authority to represent the plaintiff under the Civil Code No. 26.

The attorney of the defendant et al. acknowledged that the plaintiff was well-known among the non-party 1 and the defendant 1 as to the defendant et al. on July 1966. Since it was confirmed on March 1967 that the registration was valid until the registration of the transfer of the defendant 2 was made, the above registration was legitimate. However, although the non-party 3's testimony of the defendant non-party 4-2 as to the contents of the evidence No. 4-2 and this point is hard to recognize, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, it cannot be accepted at the time of the above assertion.

Thus, the defendant et al. is obligated to cancel the above registration of the plaintiff, so the plaintiff's claim for objection shall be justified, and all of them shall be accepted. Since the judgment of the court below is identical with the conclusion and the appeal by the defendant et al. is without merit, it shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by

Judges Saples (Presiding Judge)