Whether a expressive representation is established solely on the ground that a person has the seal and seal impression of another person.

If a person received another person's seal and seal impression and used it in a joint and several surety, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the person has the right of representation merely because he/she had the seal and seal impression of the other person.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

68Da999 decided Nov. 26, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 6226, Supreme Court Decision 163Du235 decided Mar. 11, 194; Supreme Court Decision 126(50)252 Decided Nov. 26, 1968

Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives

Defendant 1 and two others

Jeonju District Court in the first instance (73Gahap129) Maz. Eup

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 4,951,730 won and the amount of 9% per annum from October 1, 1971 to December 31 of the same year, 1972 to 36% per annum, 5% per annum from January 1, 1972 to January 16 of the same year, 31% per annum from January 17, 1972 to August 2 of the same year, 30% per annum, 25% per annum from August 3, 1972 to the full payment date.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

On September 11, 1970, the Plaintiff: (a) under the joint and several sureties’s request, Nonparty 1 borrowed 4,951,730 won to Nonparty 1 for the joint and several sureties; (b) after the grace period from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1974, the Plaintiff shall be paid twice in installments each year; (c) interest shall be paid at 9% per annum; and (d) interest shall be paid at 36% per annum from the date following the due date when the Defendants delayed repayment of the principal and interest at the request of the creditors; and (d) the Defendants transferred the above bonds to Nonparty 1 with the consent of the debtors; and (e) Nonparty 1 did not have any dispute over the establishment of the Defendants’ joint and several sureties’s testimony under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s signature, and thus, the Defendants shall have no other evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the witnesses, and thus, the Defendants shall first seek payment of the amount of the Defendants’ testimony and joint and several surety.

The plaintiff, as alleged in the plaintiff, believed that the defendants were needed to confirm residence and delivered the certificate of personal seal impression and seal to the non-party 2. Even if the non-party used to conclude the loan contract of this case, it is an expression representation act under Article 126 of the Civil Code, so the defendants cannot be held liable. Thus, as acknowledged above, the defendants believed the non-party 2's horse necessary for the confirmation of residence and delivered the defendants' seal and seal to the non-party 2. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the defendants issued the certificate of personal seal impression and seal to the non-party 2. Even if the plaintiff's representative authority is deemed to be granted, it cannot be concluded that the above Gowon fishery cooperative did not perform legal acts such as loan contracts, etc. on several occasions other than the plaintiff's representative of the defendants, and it does not constitute the non-party 2's legal act on behalf of the defendants, and therefore, it cannot be justified to recognize that the defendants' joint and several surety's name and seal certificate constitute a joint and several surety of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed by the plaintiff's principal is unnecessary to determine further, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which is in the same result, is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)