A case where the establishment of expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act is recognized;

Where the Defendants deposited seals at all times to obtain fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, etc., the Defendants shall be held liable for expressive representation unless there are circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent in believing that the Plaintiff had the power to represent the head of the said association if the president of the agricultural cooperative made a loan for consumption on behalf of the Defendant by using his/her seal.

Article 125 of the Civil Act

Nutrition-gun Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and six others (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 19, 1971

Daegu District Court Decision 70-3 delivered on October 22, 1970

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 561,048 won and the amount of 80% per annum from July 26, 1967 to December 31 of the same year and 365% per annum from January 1, 1968 to the date of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The same shall apply to the order.

On July 26, 1967, the summary of the plaintiff's principal agreed that when the plaintiff lends the fertilizer of 561,048 won to Cheongnam-dong Agricultural Cooperatives, Cheongnam-dong, Cheongnam-do, the defendant's joint surety on July 26, 1967, the repayment shall be made in cash, but the transplant shall be made at 8% per annum 4% per annum on the above amount, and the repayment shall be made at 36% per annum on December 31 of the same year, and when the above repayment period is over, the compensation for delay shall be paid at the rate of 36% per annum. However, the corresponding evidence No. 1 of the plaintiff's principal's certificate (the certificate of foreign fertilizer sales) shall be considered to have been accepted by the testimony of the court below and the non-party No. 1 of the trial witness and the testimony of the above witness, it shall be recognized that the non-party 1, who was the head of the partnership at the time, was in custody of the defendant's seal, etc.

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant et al. should bear the responsibility for this case because he believed that the non-party 1 had the authority to act on behalf of the defendant et al. even though the defendant et al. did not delegate his right to guarantee the non-party 1. Thus, considering the testimony of the non-party 2, 3, and 4 (excluding the non-party 2, 3, and 4) and the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 1 was the head of the Cheongnam-dong Agricultural Cooperatives Association at the same time, the non-party 1 was the head of the non-party 5, 6, the non-party 1 had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff et al., and the defendant et al. should have the reason to believe that the non-party 1 had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al. should be sold to the non-party 1 through the above Cheongnam-dong Agricultural Cooperatives, and it should be sold to the plaintiff et al.

However, the defendant et al. asserted that the above obligation had already been extinguished due to the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant et al. who received a security security for the claim for the interest of this case from the non-party 1 and the exemption or correction of the above obligation, but there is no evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the above argument

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's claim for objection should be accepted on the ground of its reasoning is unfair, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju