The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there were errors in the incomplete hearing or violation of the rules of evidence in recognizing the apparent representation beyond the authority.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an incomplete hearing or an error in the rules of evidence in recognizing a expressive agent beyond authority.

Article 126 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na148 delivered on October 17, 1985

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below comprehensively adopted the evidence of this case. The defendant owned the real estate of this case. The defendant delegated the right to manage and dispose of the above real estate, such as sale and lease, to the non-party 1 on May 1982, and delivered the power of attorney, seal certificate, and registration certificate to the non-party 6 U.S. for the same month. However, the above non-party 1 requested the non-party 2 to have the above registration certificate and seal certificate delivered to the non-party 2 on October 1983 so that it can borrow the amount of 6 million won as security. The above non-party 2, who was requested to offer brokerage of the above real estate, had the right to purchase and sell the above real estate as security after obtaining the above provisional registration from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, who was urged to pay 16 million won or more from the plaintiff at the time of the above provisional registration, and the plaintiff's right to purchase and sell the above real estate as security without the consent of the plaintiff 1 to repay.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 8-9, 10 (Examination of plaintiff), Eul evidence No. 2-5, and Eul evidence No. 2-6 (the police and prosecutor's statement about non-party No. 2), and testimony of non-party No. 1, non-party No. 3, and non-party No. 4, etc., which were held by the court below, the plaintiff received the above documents, etc. concerning the real estate of this case from the above non-party No. 2, and it was found that the above non-party Nos. 2 and the non-party No. 1 were aware of the fact that the defendant, the owner of the above real estate, was in U.S. at the time, and it was not possible to recognize that the non-party No. 2 did not have the right to use the real estate of this case for the purpose of collecting money from the non-party No. 2, and that the plaintiff did not have the right to use the real estate of this case before the issuance of the right to use the real estate of this case to the non-party No. 2.

Therefore, if the present circumstances are identical to this, it is difficult to conclude that the above non-party 2 has justifiable grounds to believe that he had the authority to make a purchase and sale reservation and a provisional registration as to the real estate of this case. However, even though the court below acknowledged the establishment of the expression agency for the reasons stated in its holding, it should be deemed that the court below failed to properly conduct a hearing or committed an unlawful act that misleads the facts in violation of the rules of evidence and misleads the legal principles of the expression agency, which constitutes grounds for reversal as stipulated in Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)