Act of expression as an agent after the lapse of power of representation;

If the former owner concludes a sales contract on behalf of the former owner, and again concludes a sales contract on forest land, and the other party is believed to be his/her agent, it shall be valid as an expression agent act after the lapse of his/her power of representation, unless it is negligent.

Article 129 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da2141 delivered on February 10, 1970 (Kakaddd. 4417, Supreme Court Decision 18Da191 delivered on February 10, 197, Supreme Court Decision 130(4)257 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 2 and two others

Defendant 1

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap1516) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1612 Delivered on January 28, 1975

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. As to the plaintiff:

(1) Defendant 1: (a) the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on February 10, 1971 on the ground of sale on February 10, 1971, No. 1226 of the Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court Branch No. 1226, Jun. 13, 1971; (b) the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on February 10, 1971

(2) The defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 (the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4) received gold 497,400 won from the plaintiff and simultaneously implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on sale on the same real estate on December 31, 1970.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The purport of the original claim and appeal is as stated in the text of the appeal.

The gist of the preliminary appeal and the preliminary appeal (the extension of the trial after the return);

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. As to the plaintiff:

(1) (A) The contract of donation concluded on February 10, 1971 between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 with respect to the real estate indicated in the order shall be revoked. (B) The registration of transfer of ownership is cancelled on the ground of sale on February 10, 1971, No. 1226 of Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court (No. 1226), which was received on February 13, 1971;

(2) Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, the party taking over the lawsuit of Nonparty 1, who received 497,400 won from the Plaintiff, and simultaneously implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on sale on the same real estate on December 31, 1970.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

1. The fact that the Gyeonggi-do 31-2 forest No. 31-2 forest No. 31-2 forest No. 31-3 forest No. 31-2 forest No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the forest No. 1226 of the Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court") was originally owned by Nonparty 1, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration has been made before Defendant 1 on the grounds of sale on February 10, 1971 is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination as to claims filed by the deceased Nonparty 1 against the litigants;

(1) On December 31, 1970, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff purchased 2,897,400 won of this case from the deceased non-party 1's agent and agreed to pay 300,000 won of the down payment on February 28, 1971 as the down payment, and paid 2,100,000 won out of the remaining payment seven times until February 16, 1971, the non-party 1's agent's claim that the above 2,00,000 won was not made to the non-party 1's agent's transfer registration procedure for 497,400 won, and that the non-party 2's allegation that the non-party 3's statement of the above down payment was not made to the non-party 1's agent's agent's counter-party 3's counter-party 1's counter-party 3's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 2's counter-party 1's counter-2's allegation 1's counter-2'

(2) 다음 원고는 예비적으로 소외 2가 소외 1의 대리인이 아니라 하더라도 이건 임야는 원래 분할전 경기도 여주읍 점봉리 산 31 임야 7정 6단 1무보중의 일부였는데 소외 2가 1970.10.11. 소외 1을 대리하여 그중 산 31의 1 임야 3정 2단 2무보를 분할하여 원고에게 매도하였고 위 대리권소멸후 원고와 이건 임야에 관한 매매계약을 체결할 때에도 소외 2는 소외 1의 대리인이라고 칭하였고, 원고는 소외 2의 위 대리권이 소멸된 사실을 전혀 모르고 위 매매계약을 체결한 것이므로 원고로서는 소외 2가 소외 1의 대리인이라고 믿는데에 아무런 과실이 없으니 소외 2의 이건 임야게 관한 매매계약체결행위는 적어도 대리권소멸후에 한 표현대리행위에 해당하여 유효하므로 소외 1은 원고에 대하여 위 매매계약에 따라 잔대금 497,400원을 수령함과 동시에 이건 임야의 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다고 주장하고 피고들은 이를 다투므로 살피건대, 위 갑 제2호증, 같은 제3호증의 1 내지 8(피고들은 위 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 8 각 영수증의 기재중 " 소외 1의 대리인"이라는 부분은 각 변조된 것이라고 증거 항변하나 위 항변에 부합하는 환송전후 당심증인 소외 2의 증언부분은 이를 믿지 아니하고 그밖에 이를 인정할만한 증거가 없으니 이유없다), 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증, 같은 제5호증(각 등기부등본), 같은 제4호증(호적등본), 원심증인 소외 5의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제6호증(부동산매매계약서), 환송전후 당심증인 소외 2의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제1호증(부동산매매계약서)의 각 기재에 위 증인 소외 3, 5, 2, 환송전 당심증인 소외 4, 환송전후 당심증인 소외 6의 각 증언과 환송전 당심에서 한 망 소외 1에 대한 피고본인심문결과(단 위 증언과 본인심문결과 중 각 믿지않은 부분제외) 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 2는 망 소외 1의 증손이고 피고 1( 소외 1의 손자)의 장남인 사실, 이건 임야는 원래 소외 1의 소유인 경기도 여주읍 점봉리 산 31 임야 7정 6단 1무보에서 1970.11.3. 분할되고, 나머지는 같은리 산 31의 1 임야 3정 2단 2무보로 된 사실, 소외 2는 1970.10.11. 그 증조부인 소외 1(당시 96세의 노령자임)의 대리인으로서 위 산 31의 1 임야 3정 2단 2무보에 관하여 원고의 대리인인 소외 7과 매매계약을 체결함에 있어서 매도인 명의를 피고 1로 표시하고 그 대금을 평당 금 190원 합계금 2,185,000원, 계약금 250,000원은 계약 당일, 잔대금 1,935,000원은 그 소유권이전등기서류와 상환으로 1970.11.11.지급하기로 약정하여 위 매매대금을 전부 수령한 후 소유권이전등기소요서류를 원고에게 교부하였던 사실, 소외 2는 1970.12.31. 다시 원고와 이건 임야에 관한 매매계약을 소외 1의 대리인이라고 칭하고 체결하면서 대금은 금 2,897,400원, 계약금 300,000원은 계약당일에, 잔대금은 1971.2.28.에 그 소유권이전등기서류와 상환으로 지급하기로 약정하고, 원고로부터 위 계약당일 계약금 300,000원, 1971.1.9. 금 400,000원, 같은달 14. 금 100,000원, 같은달 26. 금 400,000원, 같은해 2.10. 금 200,000원, 같은달 13.금 250,000원, 같은달 15. 금 250,000원, 같은달 16. 금 500,000원, 합계금 2,400,000원을 각 수령하고, 원고에게 그 각 영수증(갑 제3호증의 1 내지 8)을 소외 1의 대리인명의로 작성 교부한 사실, 소외 2는 원고로부터 수령한 위 매매대금중 일부는 그 어머니이고, 피고 1의 처인 망 소외 8이 1971.1.29 사망하였을 때 그 장례를 위한 교통비로, 일부는 그시경 그 누이동생이고 피고 1의 딸인 소외 9의 결혼비용의 일부로 사용한 사실, 원고가 1971.2.28. 이건 임야의 매매잔대금 497,400원을 소외 1과 피고 1에게 제공하면서 이건 임야소유권이전등기소요서류를 교부하여 줄 것을 요구하였으나 동인들이 이를 거절한 사실, 소외 1은 이건 소송계속중인 1974.5.26. 사망하여 손자인 피고 1(그 아들 소외 10의 대습상속인)와 그 딸인 피고 2, 그 외손인 피고 3, 4(그딸 소외 11의 대습상속인)가 소외 1의 재산을 공동상속한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 원심증인 소외 12 환송전 당심증인 소외 13, 위 증인 소외 3, 4, 6, 2의 각 증언과 망 소외 1에 대한 피고본인심문결과중 위 인정에 반하는 부분은 이를 믿지 아니하고 을 제2,3호증의 기재는 위 인정에 방해가 되지 아니하고 달리 반증이 없다.

(3) According to the above facts, the non-party 2 concluded a sales contract on behalf of the deceased non-party 1 on the part of the deceased non-party 1, and again concluded a sales contract on the forest of this case with the plaintiff and the non-party 1's agent even after the termination of the above power to represent the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion of the sales contract on the forest of this case is recognized to have no negligence on the part of the non-party 2's agent's believe that the non-party 1 was the non-party 1's agent. Thus, in this case where it is not proved that the plaintiff's conclusion of the sales contract on the forest of this case was not legitimate after the termination of the power to represent the plaintiff, the non-party 2's conclusion of the sales contract on the non-party 2's forest of this case is valid as an expression agent after the termination of the power to represent the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff's non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4 is obligated to receive 40

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1

The plaintiff argued that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 had sold the forest land to the plaintiff, and that the non-party 1 had the right to transfer the ownership to the defendant 1 on February 10, 1971, and that the above sale was null and void as it was the most sale, and that the above sale should also be revoked as the cause of invalidity. Since the non-party 1 had lawfully donated the forest land to the defendant 1 on February 10, 1971, the non-party 1 had the duty to transfer the ownership to the plaintiff 10, the non-party 1 was the deceased non-party 1's son and his father, and the non-party 2's father and the non-party 1 was the non-party 1's mother at the time of sale to the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 was the non-party 1's 96's son's son's son's son's 10's son.

4. Accordingly, Defendant 1, the plaintiff, who is the party to the lawsuit of the deceased non-party 1, received 497,400 won from the plaintiff, which is the party to the lawsuit of the deceased non-party 1, and upon receipt of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the sale on December 31, 1970 concerning the forest of this case, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified and acceptable. Since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, it is so revoked, and the decision is delivered as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of total litigation costs.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)