Sale and purchase of real estate by an agent and incomplete hearing

Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, who was granted the power of attorney from the defendant, as the representative of Eul, could not assert that the plaintiff is not the purchaser of the plaintiff, unless the defendant knew or knew that the plaintiff had granted the power of attorney again to the plaintiff, and that there was no special circumstance as seen above, the court below should examine whether there was any special circumstance as seen in the above.

Article 120 of the Civil Act, Article 114 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2233 delivered on March 15, 1967

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff sold the building site and building of this case to the defendant, and the defendant claimed as a lawsuit for this case as the remaining price of 2.30,000 won is not yet paid. However, since the evidence of the above sale is not prepared by the defendant, the plaintiff's intention, the defendant, who submitted the proof of the above sale fact, and the non-party 1's arbitrary use of the defendant's name, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the sale fact of the plaintiff's assertion. According to evidence, the court below held that the plaintiff's claim is just because the non-party 2's request for purchase of the house from the non-party 2 and the defendant who was granted the power of attorney for purchase of the house can be recognized as the fact that the non-party 1 entered into a sales contract for the real estate of this case with the plaintiff and the non-party 2. Thus, the above

However, unless there are special circumstances, such as the plaintiff's granting of power of attorney to the defendant, and the non-party 1 entered into a contract with the plaintiff as the purchaser without obtaining the power of attorney from the defendant, it may not be known, but if the non-party 1 received the power of attorney from the defendant as the purchaser, and the contract with the plaintiff was entered into with the defendant as a direct purchaser, the non-party 2 shall be deemed to have granted the power of attorney to the defendant as determined by the original judgment, and unless the defendant knew or knew that he again granted the power of attorney to the above non-party 1, the defendant shall not be deemed to have asserted that the plaintiff is not the purchaser. However, even though the original judgment was rejected as a dissenting opinion without examining and judging whether there is any special circumstance as seen above, it has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is no merit in the conclusion.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu