The case where the husband has issued a registration certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, seal, etc. to the wife and recognized the expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act.

If her husband delivers to her wife a certificate of his/her personal seal impression and seal directly issued for the purpose of lending the certificate of registration and the purpose of use of real estate owned by her husband, it is reasonable to deem that he/she externally conferred the power of representation on a third party.

Article 125 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (82 Gohap5955)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 31,340,000 won with 25 percent interest per annum from December 26, 1980 to the date of full payment.

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

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The same as the disposition. (Reduction of Part of the Agreed Interest and Delay Damages in the Judgment of the Court)

Since Gap evidence Nos. 3, 8-1, 2-1, 10-2, and 10-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1, and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, and 2 of the whole document which are presumed to have been established, considering the whole testimony of the court below and the court below, non-party 1, 2, 3, and the witness non-party 4, the witness of the court below and the non-party 5 (excluding the non-party 2, 3, and 5 of the above witness testimony of the court below and the non-party 5 (excluding the non-party 2, 3, and 5 of the above witness testimony of the court below), the plaintiff's wife's testimony of the above defendant's 5,00,000 won, and each of the above evidence No. 1, 300,500,000 won, and 1,530,005,00

The plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed interest from the plaintiff 4% per month on his own behalf as his wife or his agent, and that even if not, the defendant is responsible for the repayment of the above interest to the plaintiff since the defendant stated that the non-party 5 granted the right to borrow the above money from the plaintiff to the non-party 5, and therefore, the non-party 5 should first receive the above money from the plaintiff as the defendant's interest or representative, and there is no other evidence to support this point. The above argument is groundless.

However, in light of the above evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8-1, 2, 10-1, 7-1, 9-2, and 9-1 and 5 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (excluding the part which is not trusted after the above witness 1, 2, 3, and 5's testimony) each of the following 0-1, 60-2, 10-2, 5 of the above real estate borrowed from the above 5-2, 10-2, 10-6, 10-6, 10-6, 10-6, 10-6, 10-6, 00-6, 00-6, 000-6, 000-6, 000-6, 00-6, 000,000-6, 00-6,000

Therefore, in light of the above facts, even if the defendant did not directly delegate the loan of this case to the non-party 5, his wife, it is reasonable to view that the non-party 5 externally expressed that the non-party 5 was granted the right of representation concerning the loan of this case by delivering the certificate and seal of his wife to the non-party 5, which was directly issued for the loan of the certificate and the purpose of the registration of the above real estate owned by him, to the non-party 5. Thus, the non-party 5 is liable to repay the above money to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

First of all, the defendant asserts that he paid the principal amount of KRW 2,00,000 among the above borrowed amounts, and the fact that he received KRW 2,00,000 from the defendant around December 1980 is the plaintiff. However, each of the testimony of the non-party 2 and 5 of the above witness alone is insufficient to be considered as evidence to prove that he agreed to pay the principal of the above borrowed amount of KRW 2,00,000,000 as evidence, and there is no other evidence to support this point. The non-party 1's testimony in light of the whole purport of the argument, the above amount of KRW 2,00,000 shall be appropriated to pay the interest amount of KRW 1,840,000 for the above borrowed amount until December 25, 1980, and the remaining amount of KRW 160,000 shall be appropriated for the payment of part of the principal. Thus, this argument is groundless.

The following reasons are that the plaintiff and the non-party 6 subscribed to the 30,000 won successful bid for the loans organized on March 25, 1980, and the non-party 5 subscribed to the 30,000 won. At the time the above loan certificate was prepared, the date of the above loan loan was April 25, 1980, and the above loan repayment was terminated on September 25, 1982, the above loan repayment amount was decided to offset the above loan repayment amount and the non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 6's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's claim that the above loan repayment amount was extinguished or non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's counter-party 5's counter-party 1's claim.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed interest and delay damages at the rate of 25% per annum on the part of the plaintiff from December 26, 1980 to December 26, 1980 on the remaining principal amount of the loan, and the agreed interest and the agreed delay damages at the rate of 31,340,000 won per annum for the plaintiff within the scope of the above agreement. The original judgment with different conclusions is unfair and reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim is revoked, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed as per Disposition with a declaration of provisional execution on the part of the defendant who has lost all the first and second trials.

Judges Jeon Soo-young (Presiding Judge)