In a case where a member of the National Agricultural Cooperative deposits his seal in order to receive fertilizers, agrochemicals, farming funds, etc. from the Gun Agricultural Cooperative to the head of the same agricultural cooperative at the same time, the expression agency shall be established.

At the same time, if the head of the relocating Agricultural Cooperatives prepared a certificate of out-of-product sales using seals entrusted by the Domins in order to distribute fertilizers, agrochemicals, and farming funds from the Domins to the Domins, the Domins agent should be established.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Nutrition-gun Agricultural Cooperatives

Angeles et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na761 delivered on September 2, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

It is clear that the original judgment was not the purport of recognizing the authenticity of No. 1 and the purport of proving it as it is, as in the theory of lawsuit, and rather, it is judged that No. 1 on behalf of the defendant in the contents of No. 8 of No. 1 on behalf of the defendant in No. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff in No. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff in No. 8 on behalf of the contents of No. 1 on the lawsuit is established without the defendant's approval, and therefore, it is impossible to recognize the defendants' joint and several liability obligations under No. 1 on behalf of the defendant in No. 1 on behalf of the defendant in No. 1 on the records. Since each evidence adopted by the court below is sufficient to recognize the facts final and conclusive, there is no error of law which confirmed the facts without any evidence in the original judgment, and when examining the answers submitted by the defendants in accordance with the records and the contents and the purport of arguments in No. 7 on the arguments of the first instance court, the defendants had been provided with a security on the claims in this case, and there is no violation of law.

No. 2, the evidence adopted in accordance with the record and the facts admitted in the original judgment were reviewed by comparison, and it is clear that the court below did not reject the testimony of the witness Kim Chang-chul or the testimony of the plaintiff union employee as to Gap evidence No. 1, as in the theory of lawsuit, but adopted the facts established in the original judgment as evidence which admitted the facts established in the original judgment. There is no violation of law of selecting evidence and determining its value in conflict with the rule of experience or reasoning in the process of confirmation of facts in the original judgment, and there is no ground for appeal to the effect that the court below erred in the

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party 1 was the head of the non-party 2's cooperative at the time and at the same time, the defendants were the head of the non-party 1 who was the head of the agricultural cooperative to receive fertilizers or agricultural funds from the plaintiff at the time, and he deposited his seal with the non-party 1 who was the head of the agricultural cooperative at the time, and the head of the plaintiff's principal should be sold to the plaintiff's members through the non-party 2 agricultural cooperative, and the non-party 1 was represented by the plaintiff in the status of the head of the above cooperative and was lent under the same agreement with the plaintiff's principal, and the non-party 1 was the plaintiff's own seal using the plaintiff's seal affixed by the non-party 1. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's agent's loan contract, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's agent's unlawful act.

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

The Korean Supreme Court Judge Han-won(Presiding Judge)