Cases where the person who issued a seal imprint, certificate of personal seal impression, and certificate of right to registration is held responsible for apparent representation exceeding his authority.

If Eul, who had been engaged in financial transactions with Eul, conspired with Eul to use the certificate of right to registration of real estate owned by Gap, certificate of seal impression, and certificate of seal impression to the effect that Eul would be used for the loan contract for bank loan and the registration of the establishment of a collateral security, and suggested the above documents, etc. to Byung's agent for the establishment of a collateral for the loan loan to Byung, while expressing Eul's agent as the agent, and signed a collateral security contract on the above real estate between the trust and trust, and the trust and trust made the establishment of a collateral security in its future, it cannot be said that Eul was authorized to conclude the above collateral security contract on behalf of Eul, and barring any special circumstances, it cannot be said that Eul was negligent on the ground that Eul did not directly verify the existence of the right to representation for Eul, barring any other special circumstances. Thus, Gap cannot be exempt from its responsibility as a principal in accordance with the legal principles of an expression agent exceeding his authority.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 85Na431 delivered on July 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the plaintiff as the debtor on the real estate of this case, and found that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of 17,00,000 won was completed on the real estate of this case with the defendant as the maximum debt amount of 17,00,000 won, and determined as follows: the court below decided that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed on the real estate of this case by considering the adopted evidence; the non-party 1, who had been engaged in money transactions with the plaintiff's wife, was granted a loan of 10,00,000 won from the bank as the collateral of this case; the court below did not find out the right to the above real estate of this case to use the real estate of this case as the collateral; the plaintiff's seal impression and certificate were delivered from the plaintiff's wife; the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 had no authority to use the real estate of this case as the collateral of this case with the plaintiff's maximum debt amount of 10,00,000,00,08,000, respectively.

In addition, if the facts are identical, it is evident that the so-called "mortgage-based contract" entered into with the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff is an unauthorized act beyond the original right of representation granted by the plaintiff, but the above non-party 1 holds a registration right certificate, a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression concerning the above real estate and expressed that he is the plaintiff's agent, so long as the defendant is the above non-party 1's agent, he cannot believe that the above non-party 1 has the right to enter into the above mortgage-based contract on behalf of the plaintiff. Although the contract of this case was a substitute contract for a security that unilaterally imposes a debt on the plaintiff, if the above non-party 1 participated in the registration right to the real estate of this case, a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression of the plaintiff, barring any other special circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant was negligent in confirming whether the right of representation was granted directly by the plaintiff himself, and thus, the judgment below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to express agent.

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

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)