(a) A case where there is no justifiable ground to believe that there exists a power of representation in an expression agency in excess of the authority;

(b) In the case of the preceding paragraph, the criteria for determining whether the other party was negligent;

A. It is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable reason for the other party to believe that the other party has the authority to conclude the joint and several surety contract on the sole basis of the fact that the agent, at the time of concluding the joint and several surety contract other than his/her authority, has the documents such as a blank bill forged in his/her name, a certificate of provision of a blank bill filling right, a written agreement for transaction, etc., and the documents necessary for

B. The issue of whether an agent was negligent in believing that the agent has the power of representation should be determined objectively by determining the overall circumstances at the time of the formation of the contract and should not take into account the subjective circumstances of the agent.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Attorney Park Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4531 delivered on April 12, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The argument points out that it is against the rules of evidence that the non-party does not recognize the non-party as the defendant's representative regarding the joint and several guarantee contract of this case. However, in light of the records, the court below is just in examining the process of cooking the evidence which the defendant did not grant the right of attorney to conclude the above joint and several guarantee contract to the non-party, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff and the non-party who made a food manufacturing business contract with the non-party on July 11, 1984 when the plaintiff delivered the plaintiff's employee with the defendant's seal affixed to the issuer or guarantor's column of the contract, the court below acknowledged that the contract was concluded by the non-party on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of securing the non-party's obligation to purchase goods, and that the defendant used the above real estate as a collateral creation and issued the non-party's seal impression and the purpose of the defendant's seal impression as a collateral establishment. The non-party, in addition to the documents necessary for the establishment of the collateral security, issued a blank bill (Evidence 1), a blank bill provision certificate (Evidence 4), a blank bill provision certificate (Evidence 6-2), a transaction agreement (Evidence 6-2), etc., and issued the plaintiff's employee with the defendant's seal affixed with the defendant's seal affixed to the issuer or guarantor's seal affixed to the plaintiff, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's joint guarantor's right.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding or decision of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to expressive representation beyond the authority such as theory of lawsuit.

However, it should be determined by objectively judging all the circumstances at the time of the formation of the contract, as to whether there is negligence in the other party's belief that the other party is a representative, and therefore, it should be determined by the court below as one of the grounds for determination that the non-party, who is the representative in this case, graduated only from a national school and lacks sufficient understanding of the contents of the contract. However, since it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for the plaintiff to believe that the non-party, who is the representative in this case, has the right to enter into a joint and several guarantee contract on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant, due to other reasons, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)