If the statement of his/her personal seal impression, etc. is asserted as an expression agent for the wife or person;

Even if the Plaintiff’s wife and person living separately from the Plaintiff presented the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, registration right certificate, etc. and misrepresented the Plaintiff’s agent, it is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff’s agent was the Plaintiff’s agent.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da2218 delivered on March 10, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 69Da5897 delivered on March 10, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18Da5897 delivered on July 18, 200)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (70Da9468) in the first instance trial

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a collateral security on the ground of a contract for the establishment of a collateral security right as of May 7, 1970 on May 9, 1970, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul U.S. child 214-5 large 8 large 24 large 8 large 7 large 7 large 24, and junbs and junbs and justs on the ground of the Dong branch of Seongbuk-gu, and junits and junits 14-6 large 14, 1970.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the purport of oral proceedings between the court below and the non-party 1, 2, and 3 as a result of the examination of evidence Gap's evidence Nos. 1-1 and 1-2 (each copy of the register of the court below), the site stated in the claim (the lot number No. 141-5 in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul) was owned by the plaintiff; the plaintiff was constructed with the same building as stated in the claim No. 1 and owned by the non-party 4 without the registration; the non-party 1, who was the birth of the non-party 4, requested the defendant to provide the non-party 4 with the above real property as security for the purpose of raising the business funds, and the non-party 1's signature No. 1 and the non-party 5's signature No. 1 and the non-party 6's signature No. 1 and the non-party 1's signature No. 60's signature No. 3 were issued for the above real property as security; the plaintiff's name and the non-party 1's signature No. 6's signature No.

The defendant presented that the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 had the plaintiff's certificate of seal impression, certificate of seal impression, certificate of right to the above real estate, and certificate of resident registration and the non-party 6 who are the defendant's husband at the time of the above provisional registration and registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, and tried to lend the above real estate as security to the non-party 4 and 5, who are the plaintiff's wife, for the purpose of raising living expenses. Since the defendant lent money to the non-party 4 and 5 with such right of representation, and completed the above registration, the defendant's act of causing the above registration is established beyond the authority pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act, and the plaintiff's act of representing the above real estate is valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, according to the above facts and evidence presented by the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's certificate of seal impression and the plaintiff's right to the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 1's share certificate and the above documents.

Therefore, since each of the above registrations in the name of the defendant with respect to the above real estate is invalid without any reason consistent with the substantive legal relationship, the defendant is obligated to cancel the above registration. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit is reasonable. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)