The case in which it cannot be deemed to be an expression agent beyond the authority

Even if the Plaintiff’s white book has been raising and managing the Plaintiff’s property because his parents died, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s white book was believed to have been delegated the right to dispose of the Plaintiff’s forest in the Defendant, or that there was no negligence on the part of the Nonparty, as it was believed to have been entrusted by the Plaintiff with the right to dispose of the Plaintiff’s forest, if the Nonparty, without any doubt, issued a registration certificate, etc. as to the instant forest in order to have the Defendant transferred from the Defendant as a collateral to borrow money from the Defendant without any doubt, and the Nonparty and his white book were in the presence of the Nonparty and his own white book.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1384 delivered on October 14, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 805Da805 delivered on October 14, 196, Supreme Court Decision 17Third citizen195 delivered on June 19, 199, Supreme Court Decision 126(5)253 delivered on

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and nine others

Busan District Court (68Ga1987,2605)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

For the plaintiff:

(1) On December 28, 1960, the defendant 1 received the Busan District Court Don Branch Office No. 7590, and the transfer of ownership on July 8, 1959 as to the real estate recorded in the list Nos. 1,2,3

(2) Defendant 2: (a) on July 4, 1963, the receipt of the same registry office on July 4, 1963, and the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on March 21, 1963

(3) Defendant 3: (a) On February 29, 1964, the receipt of the same registry office on February 29, 1964, the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on February 25, 1964

(4) Defendant 4: (a) received by the same registry office on July 4, 1963 as to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet Nos. 852 on July 4, 1963; (b) the transfer of ownership on March 21, 1963

(5) Defendant 5 is the receipt of the same registry office on July 4, 1963, No. 8523 on the real estate recorded in the above list No. 1, and the transfer of ownership on March 21, 1963

(6) On January 18, 1968, the defendant 6 received the same registry office on January 18, 1968, and the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale on January 16, 1968

(7) Defendant 7 received the same registry office on July 4, 1963 as No. 8524 of the same registry office on March 21, 1963, and received on October 23, 1963 as No. 1267 of the same registry office on October 23, 1963, and the transfer registration on July 2, 1963 as to October 23, 1963.

(8) Defendant 8: (a) The registration of transfer of ownership on August 23, 1963, which was received by the same registry office on August 27, 1963, and was made on August 23, 1963.

(9) On January 21, 1964, the receipt of the same registry office on January 21, 1964, and the transfer of ownership and the procedure for registration of cancellation on January 10, 1964, shall be implemented on January 10, 1964.

(10) Defendant 10 shall perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration in installments by dividing the section 510 square meters on the ship connecting the points of the separate drawings indication (A), (c), (d), (f), (f), (g), (h), and (A) of the forest land of 830 square meters of the 978-1 forest land in the Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

First, we judge the plaintiff's agent's and the argument that there is an obvious clerical error in the trial records.

According to the trial records of the court below (Records 74 and documentary evidence list), it is written to the purport that the plaintiff representative's establishment of Eul evidence 2 (real estate transfer certificate) submitted by the defendants' agent is recognized. Accordingly, although the court below acknowledged that the above documentary evidence was part of the record of the purport of the above documentary evidence, although the plaintiff representative stated that the establishment is denied, it is stated to the purport that the above establishment is recognized by mistake of the court below's clerk. Thus, it is sufficient to recognize that the written statement of the above written statement is an obvious clerical error by mistake of the court clerk, and considering that the plaintiff representative denies the examination results of non-party 1 by the witness's commission by the party member and the written statement of non-party 1 by the party member's commission, the written statement of the above written statement is invalid.

Thus, since the real estate in the 107 forest land in the 107 forest land in the 107 forest land in the Dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City becomes the real estate in several lots as stated in the purport of the claim as of time due to division, merger, land category change, etc., each real estate has already been registered before the transfer registration of ownership in each of the Defendants' future as stated in the purport of the claim, it is obvious by the records of evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5, 4 through 7, 11, 12 (duplicate) without dispute over the establishment, and the appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the original judgment, and the fact that the above 107 forest land in the 107 forest land in the Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City was owned by the representative of the Plaintiff on December 28, 1960 and the above 193 forest land in the above 190 forest land was owned by the plaintiff's representative on the 10th family court's consent to the above 196th family court's death.

However, Defendant 1 purchased this case directly from Nonparty 1 in around 1959, and even if not, Nonparty 4 was delegated by the Plaintiff to sell it to Defendant 1 pursuant to his authority. Even if there was no legitimate authority to do so, Dong 1 was deemed to have the right to dispose of this case with the Plaintiff’s seal and registration certificate, and it was believed that Defendant 1 had the right to dispose of this case as well as that there was considerable reason to believe that it was valid in light of the above circumstances. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s sale of this case’s seal and registration was consistent with the substantive practice of the above rights, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff sold it directly from Nonparty 1 or the deceased Nonparty 4 sold it to Nonparty 1 in his name with the Plaintiff’s right to use it (this part of the evidence as to Defendant 1’s assertion that it was not consistent with the above evidence and evidence as to Defendant 1’s assertion that part of this case’s signature and registration certificate was not contained in Defendant 1’s own evidence (this part of the evidence and evidence).

Therefore, Defendant 1’s registration is invalid, and the registration made thereafter is also null and void. Thus, it is obligated to cancel the registration made in the name of other Defendants. Since ten Busan City/Dong-dong 107-2 forest land divided from the above forest land is combined with one half of the forest land of 978-1 forest land of 978-2 forest land, and the registration is closed (Evidence A4), the defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in the attached Form No. 107-2 forest land of 107 from among the forest land of 978-1, the original forest of 978-2 forest land of 107. The judgment is inconsistent with the original judgment, and the litigation cost is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)