1. Status of, and the validity of the repayment to, a bond brokerage business operator;

2. Where a representative acts as proxy beyond the scope of authorization, the extent that the act of unauthorized representation is recognized as valid;

1. If the bond brokerage company acts for the bond broker, the bond broker will act for the debtor's agent later, and if the debtor acts on behalf of the debtor, the debt broker's agent will act for the bond broker's agent, and thus the repayment to the bond brokerage company will be valid as repayment to the agent.

2. If Gap borrowed 1,00,000 won or more from Eul to secure its obligation, and then the motor vehicle register, the certificate of personal seal impression for the establishment of collateral, only one seal of Gap, and two copies of a mutual agreement certificate are delivered to Eul, whichever is blank, it shall be deemed that Gap grants Eul the authority to do a legal act of creating a mortgage on his behalf, and the extent of granting the agent's right to do so shall also be deemed to include what the scope of the secured obligation guaranteed by the above motor vehicle is about 1,00,000 won or more (i.e., security right holder) in the form of the security (i., whether the secured right holder), whichever is about the above motor vehicle beyond the scope of the right to use as collateral, and the remaining amount is about 6,000,000 won and only the maximum amount of the secured obligation is about 0,000 won which belongs to Gap's act of establishing a mortgage within the scope of 00,000 won which belongs to Gap's agent.

Articles 114 and 126 of the Civil Act

1. Supreme Court Decision 80Da1756 Decided February 24, 1981 (Article 114(41) of the Civil Act) (Article 86Meu754 Decided September 8, 1987)

For the last time:

Park Jong-sil et al.

The plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed in entirety.

The defendants shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from March 18, 1987 to the full payment of them. The defendant Park Young-jin shall execute each procedure of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of mortgage completed as of the motor vehicles listed in the attached list as of January 10, 1987 in Seoul Automobile Management Business Office No. 560391, Jan. 10, 1987, and the defendant Choi Young-jin completed as of March 17, 1987 as of the above motor vehicles as of March 17, 197 in the same business office.

The plaintiff's remaining conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

The lawsuit cost shall be divided into two parts, one of which shall be the plaintiff and the other of which shall be the defendants' each.

The primary claim: The order of cancellation for the registration of the establishment of mortgage completed as of January 10, 1987 by the Seoul Automobile Management Business Office No. 560391, which was accepted as of January 10, 1987 and the registration of the establishment of mortgage completed as of March 17, 1987 as of March 17, 1987.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

Preliminary Claim: The Defendant shall receive from the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 per annum from the Plaintiff and the amount of KRW 25% per annum from March 18, 1987 to the date of full payment. At the same time, the Defendants shall comply with the registration cancellation procedure for the said automobile.

Litigation Costs are assessed against the Defendants.

We also examine the primary and conjunctive claims.

No. 1, 2, 3 (Multiple Bill), 2-2 of 2, 3-2 of 2, 3-2 of 4-2, 4-3 of 2-4, 3-4 of 4-4, 4-5 of 4-2, 6-1 of 2-1 of 4-2, 6-1 of 4-1 of 2, 2-2 of 4-1 of 4-6, 4-6 of 7 of 4-2 of 9, 4-6 of 4, 4-6 of 4-2, 4-4 of 4, 4-4, 4-4 of 4-4 of 7 of 9-2 of 10, 10-1 of 9-1 of 7, 10-1 of 9-2 of 9-1 of 7, 10-1 of 9-2 of 9-1 of 9-1 of 1 of 6-2 of 9-2 of 1 of 7, 1 of 1 of testimony

The plaintiff asserts that the above 0th of 0th of 0th of 0th of 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 00 0th 0th 0th 00 0th 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 6th 00 0th 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 200 th 0th 200 th 0th 2002

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to execute the registration procedure of cancellation of the first mortgage on the automobiles of this case and the second mortgage on the condition that the parties to the agreement receive interest at the rate of 25 percent per annum from March 18, 1987, which is the limit of the interest limitation under the Interest Limitation Act, among the parties to the agreement from March 18, 1987 to the full payment, from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case is justified only within the above limit of the above recognition, and all the plaintiff's main claim of this case and the remainder of the conjunctive claim of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)