a person who holds a mother's seal impression or a certificate of a seal imprint shall be deemed to have an expression agency;

In the case where Nonparty A, who was requested by the Plaintiff, his mother, to change the Plaintiff’s name of registration of a motor vehicle, presented the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression and seal imprint, and made the Defendant believe that the Defendant was granted the right of representation from the Plaintiff, his mother, and in this case where the Defendant and the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant believed that the Defendant had the right of representation to establish the said mortgage contract with the Nonparty A, and there is a justifiable reason to believe it.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da681 delivered on September 23, 1967

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (78 Gohap1383)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On March 14, 1978, the registration of Busan District Court's Busan District Court's registration No. 20305 on the ground of the mortgage contract for the 7th day of the same month, the defendant performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage for the 10th day of Busan District Court's 4,500,000 won, the mortgagee, the defendant, and the debtor as the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of the fact that the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate owned by the plaintiff was completed before the defendant and that the registration was made by the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's child, there is no dispute between the parties. The registration is invalid because the plaintiff's agent or the non-party 1 entered into a mortgage contract with the non-party 1, who is an expression agent, and the registration is valid, so it is not proved that the non-party 1 obtained the right of representation from the plaintiff and obtained the above registration, but there is no evidence that the non-party 2 (Agreement), Eul's certificate No. 14 (No. 14) and the defendant did not have the right of representation for the non-party 1 to obtain the above registration from the non-party 1, 2, 3, 4, and the defendant's testimony that the non-party 1 had no choice but to obtain the right of representation for the defendant from the non-party 6 to the non-party 1, 3, and 197.

Therefore, in the above repayment, the defendant believed that there was the right of representation to establish the above mortgage contract against the non-party 1, and also constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason to believe it. Therefore, the effect of the mortgage contract between the non-party 1 and the defendant shall affect the plaintiff in accordance with the legal principles of so-called expression representation. Therefore, the registration of establishment of the above neighboring mortgage made before the defendant shall be valid.

The plaintiff asserts that (1) even if the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage is valid, the plaintiff is not liable to the defendant, and there is no secured debt. (2) Even if the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring neighboring mortgage for the defendant of the non-party 6, the debt was fully repaid and the secured debt was extinguished. In other words, the defendant is obligated to execute the registration procedure for the cancellation of the above registration. However, as seen above, it is recognized that the above registration is for securing the repayment of the debt to the non-party 6's defendant. As it is consistent with the above, it is difficult to believe that some of the testimony of the non-party 1 and 4 of the above witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's excluding the debt incurred before the above registration was repaid to the non-party 6's defendant. The plaintiff's testimony is hard to believe in light of some contents of the above witness right and the purport of the testimony before the above witness right, and there is no evidence of evidence Nos. 1, 2 (Receipt), 6, and 8.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the execution of the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage shall be dismissed without merit, and since the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be revoked, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing plaintiff and it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines