The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to claim the effect of an expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, the other party is required to believe that he/she has a power of representation on his/her own behalf, and there is a justifiable reason to believe the same. The existence of such a justifiable reason must be objectively observed and determined in all the circumstances existing when the act of an agent by his/her own name took place.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da99617, Apr. 26, 2013). Whether there is a justifiable reason to believe that an unauthorized representative has the authority to act as an authorized representative under Article 126 of the Civil Act is determined at the time of the establishment of the sales contract, which is an act as an agent, and the circumstances after the establishment of the sales contract are not considered. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the mere fact that an unauthorized representative delivered the certificate of the principal’s seal impression and power of attorney to the other party only after the execution of the contract is made after the sales contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Da322 delivered on December 8, 1981). 2. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, has the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant against E and D (hereinafter “E”) regarding the conclusion of the instant sales contract. A.

E, etc. have managed the instant real estate upon delegation by the Defendant, and the Defendant did not interfere for a long time.

E, etc., based on these circumstances, explained to the effect that the nominal owner of the Plaintiff is the Defendant, but he has the right to dispose of the instant real estate.

B. E was aware that the Defendant disposed of the instant real estate in accordance with its mother’s meaning and distributed the price to its members, including them. In around 2003, her mother would dispose of the instant real estate and became a purchaser while concluding a sales contract with the Plaintiff.