[1] In a case where a wife provides a guarantee on behalf of the husband without any special authorization, the elements for the establishment of an expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Code

[2] The case denying the husband's apparent representation liability in case where the wife had the husband's seal imprint certificate and the certificate of personal seal impression issued at will by proxy, and the husband has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the installment sales guarantee contract on behalf of the husband

[1] In light of the fact that the act of guaranteeing another person's obligation unilaterally gives any disadvantage to the wife without any consideration in its nature, it belongs to the common sense that the husband grants the right of representation necessary to guarantee the obligation of the wife to the wife. Therefore, in a case where the wife performs the above act on behalf of the husband without any special authorization, it should not be deemed that the wife had the right of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code, but there should be objective circumstances to justify the other party's belief that the husband provided the wife with the right of representation for the act.

[2] In a case where the wife provided a certificate of personal seal impression issued by the husband at his own discretion without stating the husband's seal impression degree and the use column, and the wife provided a joint and several surety for the obligation under the sales guarantee insurance contract of the husband with the husband's friendship on behalf of the husband, the case denying the husband

[1] Article 126 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 126 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da3204 delivered on August 25, 1981 (Gong1981, 14297) Supreme Court Decision 81Da524 delivered on June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1276) Supreme Court Decision 96Da54942 delivered on April 8, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1393)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na32108 delivered on March 25, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the fact that an act of guaranteeing another person's obligation unilaterally gives without any consideration to its nature only to the wife, it is common sense that the husband grants the right of representation necessary to guarantee the obligation of the other person to the wife. Therefore, if the wife acts as above on behalf of the husband without any special authorization, it should not be deemed that the wife had the right of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, but there should be objective circumstances to justify the other party's belief that the husband had the right of representation as to the act (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3204 delivered on August 25, 1981).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the highest defendant of the first instance court was merely the defendant's joint and several liability under the above insurance contract as the defendant's representative at the time of signing a guarantee insurance contract with the defendant's joint and several liability under the above contract with the non-party's representative at the time of signing the above contract with the non-party's consent certificate with a view to securing the amount of insurance coverage amounting to 13,970,000 won for the purpose of purchasing one automobile from the non-party Hyundai Motor Corporation Corporation (hereinafter "non-party company") around March 17, 1993. The court below held that the non-party's joint and several liability under the above insurance contract with the non-party's consent certificate with the defendant's consent certificate with the defendant's signature certificate's consent certificate's signature certificate's signature certificate's signature certificate's signature certificate', which is hard to obtain from the defendant's joint and several liability defendant's joint and several liability under the above contract with the non-party's signature certificate's signature certificate's signature certificate.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)