In a case where the wife borrowed money under the name of the husband and established a provisional registration on real estate owned by the husband as security, and recognized as an act of expression as an act of representation exceeding the ordinary power of attorney.

In a case where a wife, who is a husband, has the authority to act for the defendant with respect to daily family affairs, borrows money with the husband's seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, etc., which is the agent, and has made a provisional registration on real estate owned by the husband as security, it is recognized that the other party has a justifiable reason to believe that the above wife has the authority to act for the husband.

Articles 126 and 827 of the Civil Act

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Hong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na3342 delivered on February 8, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1, who is the defendant's wife, obtained the defendant's seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression in borrowing money from the non-party 1, and that the non-party 1's provisional registration was null and void as an unauthorized act conducted without the defendant's consent, and that the non-party 1's act constitutes an expression agent in excess of his authority. Further, the court below held that the non-party 1's act constitutes an expression agent whose name exceeds his authority, on the premise that the non-party 1 was the husband's basic right to represent the defendant as to the daily family affairs, and that the non-party 1's right to use the above seal impression as a mere economic surplus from the non-party 1's relative, as well as the defendant's right to use the above provisional registration for the non-party 1's right to use the defendant's letter of interest in light of the legal principles as to the above facts that the non-party 1's act was based on his own seal impression and the defendant 1's right to use.

The Supreme Court precedents cited as arguments are not appropriate for this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)