(a) Whether or not a power of representation may be granted by specifying the other party to the contract;

(b) Responsibility for the assertion of the apparent representation;

The assertion and burden of proof that the right of representation in the contract can be granted by specifying the other party and that the act is recognized as an expression agency in this article is a person who asserts that it is valid.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Freeboard

5 5 5

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na652 delivered on March 21, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na652 delivered on March 21, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In granting the right to conclude a contract to a representative, the other party to the contract can be specified. Thus, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 (Delegation Clause), the original judgment, which does not dispute the establishment of the parties, the defendant's husband non-party No. 1 may recognize the fact that the defendant's act of selling the unregistered building to non-party No. 2 prior to the death of the non-party No. 1, which granted the right to representation to the non-party No. 3, who was the party to the contract, to the non-party No. 2. However, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff granted the right to representation to the non-party No. 2. However, the court's decision that the non-party No. 3's selling the building to the plaintiff cannot be deemed a legitimate right of representation in the case of this case without any assertion that there is a justifiable and special circumstance. Thus, it is without merit in the conclusion that the non-party No. 3's act of selling the real estate

In addition, the right of representation to sell the main building conferred on October 12, 1963 by Nonparty 3 from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 was extinguished upon Nonparty 1’s death on April 9, 1965. Thus, in order for the Plaintiff to claim its validity pursuant to Article 129 of the Civil Act on the ground that Nonparty 1 was unaware of the death of Nonparty 1 at the time of purchase from Nonparty 3 to January 7, 1966, the Plaintiff did not sell the main building to Nonparty 2, and the Plaintiff sold it to the Plaintiff without the authority. Thus, it is recognized as an act of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, and the burden of proof of proof exists to the Plaintiff. According to the records, since the Plaintiff did not assert and prove the representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, it cannot be said that there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of representation like the theory of litigation in the original judgment, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu