Article 126 of the Civil Act where an agent has copied the name of the principal

In the event that an agent with basic power of representation commits an act beyond his/her authority, even if he/she assumes the other party as his/her own immediately, it is reasonable to apply the purpose of the expression representation system by analogy if the other party acted

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da78 delivered on April 9, 1974, 74Da78 (Supreme Court Decision 10689 Decided 10689, 22/137, 255 of the Supreme Court Decision 488Da1669 delivered on March 28, 1978, 77Da1669 delivered on March 28, 1978, 77Da1669 delivered on March 28, 1978 (Supreme Court Decision 11743 delivered on April 11743, 26/29 of the Supreme Court Decision, 126(1)30 of the Civil Act, 585 of the Court Gazette, and 10755 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court (81Gahap7)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage by the Daejeon District Court No. 46171, August 6, 1980, as to the plaintiff's housing and 25-25-25-25-25-25-25-25-25-25-25-25-3-3-44-24-24-24-24-44-7-24-24-2, 196-2.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On August 6, 1980, the Daejeon District Court's receipt of the Daejeon District Court No. 46171 on August 6, 1980, which caused the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage contract, the maximum debt amount of KRW 15 million on July 31, 1980, the debtor, the plaintiff, and the mortgagee for the right to collateral security. There is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage was made on July 31, 198 with the seal of the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the legal representative of the plaintiff, and that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the non-party 8 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the legal representative of the non-party 8 and the non-party 1 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the non-party 8 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the legal representative of the non-party 1 and the defendant 1 were the non-party 1.

According to the above facts, it is evident that at the time when Nonparty 1 borrowed money from the defendant and offered real estate in this case to the defendant as collateral, there was no power of attorney to register the establishment of the neighboring real estate in the name of the defendant. However, although the Dong was granted the right of attorney to cancel the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate in the name of the plaintiff 7 and 8 by repaying the existing debt from the plaintiff 7 and 8 with respect to the real estate in this case as collateral, the Dong did an act beyond the authority to pay the above debt, and at the time of the above defendant's representative, the above defendant's agent borrowed money from the defendant to the non-party 1 who is called the plaintiff with the seal impression, seal impression, and certificate of registration and certificate of right to register the establishment of the neighboring real estate in this case as collateral, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant was authorized to pay the money from the defendant to the defendant as collateral, and thus, the effect of the above monetary loan and mortgage contract on the real estate in this case belongs to the plaintiff at the time of the registration of the plaintiff's representative.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this lawsuit based on the premise that the establishment registration of a mortgage in the neighboring area of this case is null and void shall be dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Cho Jong-sung(Presiding Judge)