The case where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code.

The case where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Lawing Doctrine Co.

Busan District Court Decision 71Na18 delivered on September 30, 1971

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent are as follows:

For its reasons, the original judgment: (a) sold the above-mentioned forest owned by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1; (b) sold the above-mentioned forest land to Nonparty 2; and (c) transferred the above-mentioned land ownership transfer registration to Nonparty 2 around July 19, 1970; (b) issued the relevant documents, such as a white paper delegation certificate, certificate of seal imprint, and resolution; and (c) entrusted the right of registration of transfer to Nonparty 2; (d) on July 28, 1970, Nonparty 2 issued the sale certificate and resolution; and (e) issued the above-mentioned land ownership transfer registration under the name of Nonparty 2 with the authority of Nonparty 3 to obtain the above-mentioned land ownership transfer registration for the purpose of securing the Defendant’s debts, and (e) issued the above-mentioned land ownership registration for the purpose of preserving the right of ownership transfer registration under the name of Nonparty 1, 300,000 won, and thus, the Plaintiff’s federation provided the above-mentioned forest land to Nonparty 2 for sale and sale.

However, unlike being entrusted by the plaintiff, if the non-party 2 forged or altered the documents related to the registration of transfer, thereby creating a security right for the non-party 3 after directly transferring the ownership of the real estate in his name from the plaintiff to his own name, there are no special circumstances, the parties to the security right contract cannot be viewed as having created a security right for the non-party 2 and the defendant under the premise that the non-party 2 and the defendant own the real estate, and it cannot be viewed as having entered into such a contract as the plaintiff's representative, and even if the non-party 2 registered the above to the defendant in order to believe that he had the right to dispose of the real estate, the cause of the registration must be determined as valid and invalid, and even if the registration passed through the above registration, there is no possibility to intervene in the theory of the expression representative, and there is no data to recognize that the above registration of transfer in the future of the non-party 2 on the real estate in this case conforms with the substantive relation to the change of rights. Accordingly, there is no error in the judgment in this point, or there is no evidence.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng