The case affirming the establishment of an expression agency in excess of authority where Party A entered into a sales contract with Party A as a purchaser and a guarantee insurance contract with Party B as a joint surety under a contract for installment sales of automobiles and a guarantee insurance contract with Party B as a joint surety under a security insurance contract with Party B, who signed a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression with Party B as a joint surety in blank; and

The case affirming the establishment of an expression agency in excess of authority where Party A entered into a sales contract with Party A as a purchaser and a guarantee insurance contract with Party B as a joint guarantor under a sales contract for automobiles and a guarantee insurance contract with Party B, who is to become a joint guarantor of Party A, affixes his seal impression on the column of joint and several sureties in blank and affixed his seal impression and affixed his seal impression to Party A, but Party A entered into

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da16009 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1459) 91Da3068 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 774)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na13560 delivered on June 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its reasoning, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant purchased a passenger car from the non-party 1 corporation as a joint surety under the above sales contract and the guarantee insurance contract between the non-party 1 and the plaintiff company, and the non-party 1 affixed the defendant's seal impression in the column of joint surety under the letter of guarantee insurance for installment sale that the non-party 1 received from the non-party company, and the above non-party 1 affixed the defendant's seal impression two copies of the certificate of personal seal impression (the purpose is the tea guarantee and notarial deed) and the seal impression to the above non-party 1. The above non-party 1 used the above non-party 2 as the purchaser of the non-party 2 who used the above vehicle as a joint surety or the above non-party 1 as a joint surety for the above non-party 1 to establish a contract for guarantee insurance for the above non-party 1 on behalf of the defendant, and therefore, the court below did not have any authority to conclude the above contract with the non-party 1 as a joint surety or an agent for the above non-party 1.

In addition, we also agree with the judgment of the court below that rejected each of the defendant's arguments that the act of representation in this case violated the principle of wise, or that the defendant's liability of guarantee should be mitigated due to the non-party 4's contractual negligence.

The judgment of the court below shall not contain any illegality that points out the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)