The case where there is a justifiable reason to believe that there is a right as prescribed in Article 126 of the Civil Act.

A case where there is a justifiable reason to believe that an expression agent has a power of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code;

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Livestock-based Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Nam-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Daegu District Court Decision 87Na4 delivered on September 25, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party's above lease contract of this case was valid as an expression agent beyond his authority since the non-party entrusted the non-party's authority to borrow money from the non-party livestock cooperative under the name of the defendant when the non-party entered into the lease contract of this case with the non-party 1 under the name of the defendant (the non-party 2) and the non-party 1 was the non-party's personal seal impression and the non-party's personal seal impression were the non-party 1's personal seal impression and the non-party 1's personal seal impression were the non-party 1's personal seal impression's personal seal impression and the non-party 1's personal seal impression was the non-party 1's personal seal impression and the non-party 2's personal seal impression was the non-party 1's personal seal impression's personal seal impression and the non-party 1's personal seal impression was the non-party 3's personal seal impression and the non-party 1's personal seal.

However, according to the facts of the judgment below, the defendant granted the right of representation to the non-party to borrow KRW 2,00,000 from the above Livestock Industry Cooperatives to the non-party and issued the certificate of personal seal impression. According to the evidence No. 4-6 (the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office) and No. 7-7 (the statement at the prosecutor's office of the non-party) employed by the court below, the defendant had the non-party look at domestic affairs, and had the non-party pay monthly attention to other parts of the building except the non-party's store during the defendant's absence, 1,20,000,000 won, 1,000,000 won prior to the factory, and 6,000,000 won prior to the date of the contract, and it was hard to say that the non-party's domicile and the non-party's domicile were included in the non-party's daily living expenses of the non-party's prior to the contract.

Therefore, it is obvious that the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim is against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the expression agency under the Civil Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, because it is obvious that the non-party's appeal constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since it is excessive that the non-party set up his house at ordinary times and that the plaintiff believed that the contract of the lease of this case had the power

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won