Cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to representation;

Where the seal of a minor who is a person with parental authority and the certificate of right to the real estate owned by him/her are kept in his/her wife and the wife provides the real estate as security to others, the act of expression is an expression agent unless special circumstances exist.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Number of Documents

Maximum Intervention

Bank of Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na251 delivered on May 8, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na251 delivered on July 8, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s Attorney and the Intervenor’s Intervenor

According to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged the fact that the real estate was originally owned by the plaintiff who is a minor, and that the plaintiff's seal and the certificate of right to this real estate are kept by the plaintiff's person with parental authority and the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's wife, for a multi-year period. (The plaintiff is living together with the plaintiff's mother and kept his mother's right to this real estate and the certificate of right to this real estate. (The plaintiff is living together with his mother's mother.) The court below held that the plaintiff's father's right to represent in disposing of this real estate or offering this real estate as security cannot be deemed as being indicated with the plaintiff's mother's mother's right of right to represent in disposing of this real estate or offering it as a seal and certificate of right to this real estate. It is generally different from the case where the plaintiff's mother holds the other's seal and certificate of right to represent the husband's agent. Thus, it is important (the act of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant by means of loan).

However, if the non-party 1, who is a person with parental authority over the plaintiff, as well as the person responsible for supporting the plaintiff, has kept his seal and the certificate of right to real estate, and left his wife for a long time, it is reasonable to view that the above wife's act of keeping the seal and the certificate of right to the above wife, unless there are other special circumstances. If the non-party 2, who is his wife, uses the seal and certificate of right in borrowing money from the defendant and keeping the money, refers to the non-party 1's agent who is his husband, and the defendant registers the transfer of ownership as the certificate of security, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of the non-party 2 constitutes the act of expression as a representative, barring any other special circumstances, even though it is reasonable to interpret that the above act of the non-party 2 constitutes the act of expression, and because the wife is in custody of the seal and the certificate of right as the other household, it cannot be viewed that the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of expression, and it cannot be reversed.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)