A. Whether the assertion on the representation of the right is included in the assertion (negative)

B. Whether it can be viewed as ratification that an act of unauthorized representation has been abandoned for a long time without raising an objection (negative)

A. The existence of the power of representation and the establishment of the apparent representation are different from that of the requisite fact, so if there is an assertion of the authoritative representation, it is not naturally included in the assertion of the acting representation, but in this case, the court should not determine whether the acting representation is constituted.

B. In regard to the act of unauthorized Representation, it cannot be deemed that the principal ratified the act of unauthorized Representation on the ground that he left it over for a long time without raising an objection that it has no effect on himself immediately.

A. Articles 114 and 129 of the Civil Act; Articles 130 and 139 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1489 Decided December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 168) (Gong168). Supreme Court Decision 67Da2294, 67Da2295 Decided December 18, 1967 (No. 153Da384)

Maap-gu

Members of the Korea Transportation Tourism Corporation

Cheongju District Court Decision 86Na174 delivered on December 4, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The legal brief dated May 28, 1987, submitted by the defendant on May 29, 1987, which was stated in the oral argument that "the plaintiff and the non-party Hun-ok, who are fire-fighting officials, are the married couple's and they are jointly managed by the above Hun-Maok without participating in management, and the plaintiff did not participate in economic activities in the plaintiff's name, and the above Hun-Maok acting as an agent for the plaintiff's seal, and the creditors of the defendant company participated in the collection of claims, even if the delegated Hun-Maok participated in the gathering on November 5, 1985, it is natural for the above Hun-Maok to affix the plaintiff's seal to the plaintiff's seal, and therefore, it is obvious that the above Hun-Maok had the plaintiff's right of representation, and it is not clear that the above Hun-Maok violated the plaintiff's right of representation in the legal brief and the defendant's oral arguments in this case, and it is not reasonable that the above 13 defendant's right of representation is established.

With respect to the second ground:

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below rejected the defense of ratification on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff ratified the act of unauthorized representation of the above Hun-Gao, and in light of the records, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff ratified the act of unauthorized representation on the ground that the plaintiff left it over for a long time without raising any objection that the act of unauthorized representation of the Hun-Mao is not effective against the plaintiff immediately after the above act of unauthorized representation of the Hun-Mao (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da2294, 2295 delivered on December 18, 1967).

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)