The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized that her husband's act of joint and several surety agreement under her husband's name as an act of expression representation exceeding his/her right of attorney.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the establishment of an expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the obligee did not have any objective reason to justify the obligee's belief that the husband has the right to act on behalf of the wife on the part of the wife, on the ground that the wife had a right to act on the part of the husband to act on the part of the husband in order to bear jointly and severally with the husband the obligation of the husband. In light of the fact that the obligor could easily obtain his wife's seal as her husband and the obligee could have easily known such circumstances, and the obligee was delegated by the wife.

Articles 126 and 827 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da609 Decided June 23, 1981 (Gong1981, 14080) Supreme Court Decision 81Da524 Decided June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1276) Supreme Court Decision 94Da45098 Decided December 12, 1995 (Gong196, 475)

Kim Min-ok

Anthale and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na18566 delivered on November 14, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant Lee In-hee is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeal by the defendant Cho Tae-tae is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the appeal are assessed against the defendant

1. First, we examine Defendant Lee In-hee's attorney's ground of appeal No. 3.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the following facts, established the above-mentioned facts in the name of the non-party 1's company's name and registered the non-party 1's wife as the representative director and took exclusive charge of all external transactions. The non-party 2's employees were incorporated as the non-party 6's company's private company's name and used the company's funds for the personal purposes. The plaintiff invested in the non-party 103,10,000 won around the non-party 1's company's name and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

As determined by the court below, although the defendant Lee In-hee was the husband of the defendant Lee In-hee, and the plaintiff believed that he had the right to make a payment agreement of KRW 200 million on behalf of the defendant Lee In-hee on behalf of the defendant, as long as there was no legitimate power of representation against the defendant Lee In-bok, there should be objective circumstances to justify that the plaintiff believed that he granted the right of representation to the defendant Lee In-hee on his act in order to establish the representation agent under Article 126 of the Civil Code.

However, even if there exists a common right of attorney between husband and wife, in general, it is extremely exceptional to confer upon the husband the right of representation on the debt-sharing agreement with the obligee in order to jointly and severally bear the obligation of a large amount of business (200 million won) borne by the husband by the wife. In light of the fact that during the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff could easily obtain his wife's seal as the husband of the defendant Lee Ba-hee, and the plaintiff could have easily known such circumstances, the facts acknowledged by the court below cannot be said to be an objective circumstance that can justify the plaintiff's belief that the plaintiff had the right of representation on his behalf of the defendant Lee-hee, in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below.

Therefore, on the ground that the court below's determination that there is a justifiable reason for the plaintiff to believe that he had the right to act on behalf of the defendant Lee Inok-hee on behalf of the defendant, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate reasons in the expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code, and it is clear that such mistake affected the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. Defendant Ansan did not submit the appellate brief within the lawful period, and there is no indication in the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and the same Defendant’s appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant Lee In-hee is reversed without any need to determine the remainder of the grounds of appeal, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The appeal by Defendant Ansan shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal by this part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)