Requirements for establishment of a apparent representation by an indication of granting of power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act

The expression agency by the manifestation of power of representation as prescribed in Article 125 of the Civil Act is established when a person acts with a third party on behalf of the principal without any relation to the nature of basic legal relations between the principal and the person who acts as an agent, or the existence of validity thereof. In order to determine whether there was a manifestation of power of representation as prescribed in Article 125 of the Civil Act, the document shall be determined by taking into account the contents of the document submitted or held by the person who acts as an agent and the circumstances, form and nature of the document in question, and the kind and nature of the act alleged as an agent.

Article 125 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na19344 delivered on April 12, 2001

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

1. Summary of the judgment below

A. First, the lower court acknowledged the following facts in full view of the evidence.

On November 14, 1997, the non-party 1 entered into a sales contract with the defendant on the part other than 105 square meters of the land in this case with the non-party 1, the purchaser and the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the sales price of which is KRW 710 million. On November 15, 1996, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the non-party 1, who is called the defendant's agent with the introduction of the non-party 2, who is the real estate broker, with the non-party 1, the purchase price of KRW 1323 square meters of the land in this case. At the time of the above sales contract, the non-party 1 entered the sales contract with the defendant as "the non-party 1,50,000 won of the contract on the day of the contract, and paid the non-party 1,500,000 won of the intermediate payment to the plaintiff as of December 15, 1995.

B. The lower court: (a) concluded a sales contract with Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s agent for the above land and paid KRW 100 million to Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s seller for the reason that the obligation to transfer the ownership was not possible; (b) on the part of Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is obligated to return the down payment and the intermediate payment already received and pay KRW 15 million; and (c) on the part of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s sales contract written on November 15, 1997, Nonparty 1’s seal affixed thereon; and (d) on the part of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Nonparty 4, the part of the instant sales contract written on July 15, 198, which was written on behalf of Nonparty 1, which was written on the part of Nonparty 1, the sales contract and the Plaintiff’s remaining part of the instant land were omitted.

In addition, even if Nonparty 1 did not have the right of representation against the seller, the defendant did not accept the plaintiff's assertion that he was responsible for the conclusion of the sales contract by delivering the defendant's unmanned seal to Nonparty 1, and thus, the defendant was responsible for the conclusion of the sales contract. In this case, there is no evidence to deem that Nonparty 1 had the defendant's power of representation, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of registration, etc. at the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, the non-party 1 received the defendant's unmanned (it appears that it could not be confirmed as to who was the above unmanned at the time of the contract) on the ground that the non-party 1 had the right of representation.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, we affirm the judgment below's finding that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant granted the power of representation to Nonparty 1 regarding the land of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the evidence rules, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. The expression agent by the indication of the power of representation as prescribed in Article 125 of the Civil Act is established when a person, without relation to the nature of basic legal relations between the principal and the person who acts as an agent, provides a third party with the indication that he/she has granted the power of representation in performing a legal act on behalf of the principal. In order to determine that there was an indication of the power of representation by delivering the documents, the determination shall be made by taking into account the contents of the documents submitted or held by the person who acts as an agent and the circumstances, form and nature of the documents prepared and issued, and the kind, nature, etc. of the act alleged

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records on the premise of these legal principles, the fact-finding by the court below on the grounds that each of the above sales contracts bearing the Defendant’s unmanned or seal affixed with respect to the land in this case is justifiable, and if such facts are established, the fact that the Defendant, the seller, issued a sales contract with the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed an act of expressing the power of representation solely on the fact that the Defendant, as the buyer, issued the sales contract with the above unmanned or seal affixed to Nonparty 1. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles on

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)