209Na3507 Registration of transfer of ownership

1. Lee 00 (A, 77 years old, male);

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

2. Lee 00 (B, 80 years old, male)

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

3. Lee 00 (C, 58 years old, male)

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

4. Lee 00 (D, 54 years old, male)

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

5. TranscriptO (E, 78 years old, male);

Suwon-si Suwon-si

6. Man0 (F, 64 years old, male);

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

7. G, 65 years old, and male)

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

8. Lee 00 (H, 48 years old, male)

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

9.00 (I, 49 years old, male)

1.2 Yeong-gu, Taesung-si

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

J, 52 year olds, women)

Simyang-si Osan-si

Seoul Seocho-gu

Attorney Choi Woo-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 2003Da55956 Decided November 2, 2005

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Na22975 Decided August 31, 2007

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da68961 Decided January 30, 2009

May 20, 2009

July 22, 2009

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant indicated on the attached drawing 3 out of 00 g. 00 g. 00 g. - 0 g. 000 g. 3

4. Inboard (b) parts 3, 305 meters connected in sequence to each point of 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 3

on June 12, 2003, the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer due to sale will be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 10, evidence 12-5, evidence 12-5, evidence 7, 8, 13, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, evidence 8-3, evidence 4, 7, 8, 11, Eul evidence 11, evidence 16, evidence 17-3, evidence 17-4, 19, Eul evidence 20-22, evidence 24, evidence 38-1 through 4, evidence 12-4, 6, 19, and evidence 19 of the first instance court as a whole (excluding any part which is trusted after being entered), and the purport of testimony at the court of first instance as a witness.

A. L entered into a sales contract on behalf of his/her birth, on May 203, 200 for M (Provided, That L was signed and sealed on M under the name of his/her birth without indicating his/her agent relationship. L was divided into five parcels of land, including 00 m30 m30 m30,000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case"), including n on behalf of the Defendant and m360,000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant's land"). The sales contract was entered into with the owner's right side of the land of this case, 'the two m360,000 m30,000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "each contract of this case's No. 1') and the two m30,000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the owner's right side of the real estate's name and the two m20 m20 m2.).

B. On June 12, 200, the previous clan 200 clans (hereinafter referred to as the "the clans of this case") held a title trust to the plaintiffs who are the members of the clans of this case with regard to the purchase of the tombstones of this case and the land for purchase on the ground of 0 members of the clans of this case, and 0 was used to color the land under the name of the plaintiffs as the representative of the defendant on June 12, 200, and 0 was signed and sealed on the sales contract under the name of the plaintiff (Provided, That L did not indicate the substitute relationship and did all the acts related to Ma, 00 won, 75,000 won among the land of this case, 00 won, 70,000 won, 30,000 won, 60,000 won, 30,000 won, 60,000 won, 60, 200.

C. M entered the name, resident registration number, address of the Defendant in the column, and M’s name, resident registration number, and address in the column of “contestor” in the blank letter of delegation delivered by N as above A, as seen in the above A. M, and L issued the instant letter of delegation to 0 at the time of the second sale contract for the instant case, with the Defendant’s personal seal impression.

D. On the other hand, N requested reduction of the purchase price on the ground that part of land purchased from L around June 10, 2003 was a successful cemetery after the conclusion of the first sale contract of this case, but it was refused to sell the land at a lower price than the market price at the time of the conclusion of the first sale contract of this case, and on the premise that L would terminate the first sale contract of this case with L on June 25, 2003 and the first sale contract of this case on June 25, 200, "the purchase price for the land owned by the defendant shall be increased, repaid in installments, and paid 00 won to the defendant, 00 won, 200 won ; 300 won ; 00 won ; 200 won ; 00 won ; 200 won ; 30 days ; 200 days ; 30 days ; 20 days ; 30 days ; 20 days ; 20 days ; 30 days, 2000 days ;

E. On June 25, 2003, ○ issued a letter of consent to the use of the instant land with the Defendant’s certificate of seal impression from L, and paid KRW 20,000 intermediate payment to L on the same day, but L did not pay the down payment and intermediate payment received from the Plaintiff’s side.

F. On July 9, 2003, the plaintiffs filled up blanks of the letter of consent to the use of the land of this case and obtained permission for the installation of a cemetery in the name of the clan of this case from the Sungsung City. On July 14, 2003, the plaintiffs obtained permission for a land transaction contract in the names of the plaintiffs with regard to the sale of 100 square meters out of the land of this case from the Sungsung City, and until July 14, 2003 to the 16th of the same month, part of the land of this case, the 10 marries 10 of the plaintiffs were installed.

G. 0 On July 2003, 2003, 00 did not verify whether the power of representation was granted to M by the Defendant since N to discuss the First Sales Contract of this case.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The assertion by the authorized representative

Since the defendant has delegated M with the authority to conclude a sales contract for the land of this case by issuing a blank power of attorney, the contract for the second sale of this case which M entered into with the plaintiffs as the defendant's representative is valid.

B. Apparent representation argument

Even if the defendant does not delegate his power to M as to the conclusion of the second sales contract of this case, the second sales contract of this case constitutes an expression agent by the indication of granting the power of representation.

C. Ratification of unauthorized Representation

Even if it is not recognized as a domestic expression agent, N, the defendant's agent, requested that 0 be agreed upon several times, and 1,000 square meters be placed near the land of this case. At the same time, N, requesting that a grave be moved to another place, N, requesting that L be able to reach an agreement with 0, and that L be 0 provide a content certification different from the fact (Evidence B No. 13). N is recognized as a legitimate delegation of sale delivered to L on May 11, 2005 and agreed to be recognized as a legitimate contract with L trading 1,00 square meters due to power of delegation. In light of the fact that N and L are recognized as a legitimate delegation of sale delivered to L, and that L are recognized as a legitimate contract with L trading 1,00 square meters due to power of attorney.

A. Determination as to the assertion of acting representation

(1) As to whether the Defendant granted M the right of representation on the disposal of the land owned by the Defendant, health expenses, the Defendant directly granted M the right of representation on the disposal of the land owned by the Defendant, or the N separately delegated by the Defendant (N’s land owned by the Defendant granted by the Defendant)

There is no evidence to acknowledge that M has granted the right of representation of the above contents to M as to the disposition, including the right to appoint the defendant's representative.

(2) We examine whether N grants the power of attorney to M as the representative of the defendant to dispose of the land owned by the defendant.

(A) According to the above facts, while entering into the First Sales Contract with M on behalf of the Defendant, N affixed only the Defendant’s seal imprint on the letter of delegation in blank and delivered it to L who is an agent of M. . Then, M delivered L’s letter of delegation in blank to the Plaintiffs by filling for the blank column. As to the fact that the above blank part was supplemented with the legitimate authority, it is assumed that the claimant for the authenticity of the document and the submission of the document have the burden of proof; as to whether M has the authority to fill out the blank letter of delegation, it is not consistent with the above evidence Nos. 12-2, 3, 9, 10, 14 through 18, 14, 14, 14, 14, 16-1, 2, 16-1, 16-2, 17, 17-1, 2-4, 12-1, 2-4, 1-2, 1-4, 1-2, and 9-1-2, 1-2.

① It is difficult in light of the empirical rule to award the right of representation to a third party on behalf of the defendant to conclude a sales contract with a third party under the name of the defendant, even if the defendant, in the position of the seller, who purchased the land owned by the defendant from the defendant, prepares documents confirming that M has the authority to sell the land owned by the defendant to the third party as the purchaser of the land owned by the defendant, and that "M grants the right of representation to the third party to conclude a sales contract with the defendant on behalf of the defendant" (if so, if so, the defendant sells the land owned by the defendant to M at the same time, and sells the land to the third party sold by the defendant on behalf of the defendant, so it would result in an unreasonable decision that the double selling of the land would take the first place. In addition, as stated in the letter of delegation of this case, if the defendant delegates all the authority to conclude the second purchase contract and transfer the ownership of the land in this case to M from the standpoint of the defendant, the defendant shall not be obliged to bear any risk of the transfer of the land owned by the defendant, barring special circumstances.

② P, a real estate broker who prepared the first sales contract of this case, stated in the sales contract that “N” as a proxy in the investigation agency to indicate that he/she is the Defendant’s agent at the investigation agency, and issued L with the Defendant’s seal affixed on the proxy form used by him/her at the real estate brokerage office, but at that time N did not speak that he/she delegated L with the authority to dispose of the land owned by the Defendant.

③ L is at a location at which the right of representation can be held liable against the Plaintiffs, and in the investigation of the water fraud, its statement is continuously changed depending on the circumstances ( even if the Defendant stated that he did not have the right of disposal as alleged N) and its statement is not reliable. Since the statement was changed from time to time at the time of entering into the first sale contract of this case at the time of entering into the first sale contract of this case, there is no credibility in the statement.

④ After the 1st sales contract of this case, Q Q, who purchased part of the land owned by the Defendant from L and cancelled the said contract, concluded a sales contract with L on behalf of the Defendant to purchase certain 3,00 square meters of the land owned by the Defendant, and confirmed that N and Q were acting as the Defendant’s authority to dispose of the land to L. However, the above statement of Q is difficult to believe as it is, in light of the fact that Q and Q were aware of the fact that Q and Q were to purchase the land owned by the Defendant from the Defendant and resell it again.

⑤ If the Defendant delegated the sale of the instant land to M as indicated in the letter of delegation, the effect of the second sale contract between the Plaintiffs and M belongs to the Defendant. Thus, L naturally notified the Defendant of the fact of concluding the contract and the receipt of the purchase price, and delivered the down payment and the intermediate payment received from the Plaintiffs, but L, in full view of the fact that L does not do so, L representing M did not sell the instant land to the Plaintiffs in the capacity of the Defendant’s agent, but only borrowed the name of the Defendant’s agent, and it appears that M sold the instant land to the Plaintiffs by the intention that it or M take its profits as a proxy to resell the instant land purchased by the Defendant from the Defendant as a M’s agent.

(B) Next, the plaintiffs delivered L/C letter of consent to the use of the land of this case to L/W with a certificate of personal seal impression attached to L/C of this case, and the plaintiffs obtained permission for graveyard installation of part of the land of this case to L/C of this case for the purpose of clan name. Thus, the defendant alleged that L/C of this case can be seen as granting M/C right to dispose of the land of this case. In other words, L' testimony that L/C of this case was known to N in the court of first instance, but it is hard to believe that L/C of this case did not inform L/C of the conclusion of the sale contract of this case to L/C of this case, and it is also difficult to say that L/C of this case's conclusion of the second sale contract of this case with L/C of this case, which was delivered to N/N of this case's expiration of the sale contract of this case's expiration of contract of this case's M/C of this case's expiration of contract of this case's expiration of contract.

(C) In the meaning of granting the power of attorney to N on the disposal of the land owned by the Defendant, even if it can be deemed that the power of attorney and the certificate of seal impression issued to N on the disposal of the land owned by the Defendant can be deemed to have been granted, the agent has the right of reinstatement only in the case where he voluntarily consented or there is an inevitable reason. The Defendant consented to the appointment of a sub-agent by N, a voluntary agent. There is no evidence to prove that there is an inevitable reason for N to appoint a sub-agent.

(3) Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion of the right of representation does not appear to have any reason.

B. Determination on the assertion of expression representation

The expression agency pursuant to Article 125 of the Civil Code indicates that ① a person himself gives the power of representation to any third person, ② a person who acts as an agent within the scope of the power of representation indicated by the person who acts as an agent, ③ the other party is the person who has obtained the power of representation, ④ the other party is formed at the time of the good faith and negligence of the other party, ④ it is formed upon the other party’s acting as an agent, ④ it may be deemed that M is indirectly expressed the intent of authorization to the plaintiffs by issuing a blank power of attorney signed and sealed by the defendant to M, and allowing M to present M to the plaintiffs by entering his name in the delegation column of the above power of attorney. M is called as the defendant’s acting as the representative, and M was a trade contract with the plaintiffs as to part of the land of this case within the scope of business indicated in the letter of delegation business.

However, according to the above facts, L only possessed the certificate of the personal seal impression in this case and the name of the defendant at the time of the conclusion of the second sale contract of this case, and the representative did not carry the certificate of the right to completion of registration in the name of the defendant or the seal of the defendant as a matter of course. In addition, since there are two different persons in the name of the representative as stated in the letter of delegation of this case (M) and the person acting for the actual sale and purchase contract (L). Thus, the plaintiffs must have conducted a more appropriate investigation, as a matter of course, by directly confirming whether or not the other party's right to representation has been granted his/her right to representation to M or L, even though they should have conducted a more appropriate investigation. However, even though they should have conducted a second sale contract of this case, they concluded a second sale contract of this case with L and M trust only, and therefore, the plaintiffs were negligent in failing to pay due attention to the conclusion of each sale contract against the agent. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion is not justified.

Meanwhile, while the plaintiffs asserted that K, who mediated the 2nd sales contract of this case, had confirmed the duty of representation of M by telephone to N, it is not sufficient to recognize this only with the statement of No. 12-17, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of ratification of unauthorized Representation

The ratification of the act of unauthorized Representation is a sole act to vest the effect of the act on the part of 3,00 square meters, and it can be ratified by a voluntary agent who has obtained the authority to sell and purchase the above 4,00 square meters. Under the overall purport of evidence No. 14, No. 20-5, No. 11, No. 38-2, and No. 38-3, N concluded the First Sales Agreement on the part of the land owned by 3,000, with the authority to sell and purchase the above 3,000 square meters on behalf of 3,000, and upon delegation of the authority to sell and purchase the land by 3, it is recognized that the above 2,000 square meters to the third party on behalf of 3,000 square meters, and that the above 3,000 square meters agreement is not valid for the reason that 2,000 square meters of the above 3,000 square meters, and that 2,000,000.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge final number of judges

Judges Lee Dong-hee

Judges Cho Young-young