대리권 남용행위에 대한 효과차단의 근거와 대리본질론의 역할 재검토 - 표현대리에 대한 대리권 남용 법리의 적용 판례를 중심으로 -

Abstract

It is a legal tradition built through a long history that the effect of the legal acts is attributed to themselves who conduct it until the 19th century. Since then, socioeconomic changes have led to the creation of a legal system and its rationale for attributing legal effects to those who have not acted. Therefore, the agency system appeared, and the efforts to explain the relation between the separate legal actors and the effect attributors and the reason for the legitimate legal effect were actively developed centering on the German Common Law. Those are ‘the theory of principal behavior’, ‘the theory of agent behavior’ and ‘the theory of principal and agent joint behavior’ etc. And other theories that appeared later, ‘the theory of integration requirement’ and ‘the theory of separation of behavior and discipline’ have caused another controversy. While accepting the legislative historical ground that the provisions on the agency of the Korean Civil Law were made by ‘the theory of agent behavior’, there are opinions which argued differently in specific cases. One of the most serious issues is appeared the case in which the theory on the abuse of agency authority, that is to say the theory which block an effect of legitimate agent's legal conduct for his betrayal intention, apply to the non-authorized agent represented a legitimate agent. In particular, the such conclusion of the present case is difficult to reasonably understand, even by any theory on the nature of agency. There is no provision in the Koran Civil Code that expresses external agency authority such as in Article 167, Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code. The most similar provision seems to be the Article 125 of the Korean Civil Code as to the non-authorized agent looks like a legitimate agent. However, this provision differs from the German Civil Code in light of its requirements and effects, and also Article 126 and Article 129. Therefore, it is not convincing to insist on ‘the theory on the separation of behavior and discipline’ based on Korean Civil Code. Of course, we can not stop making such a claim as theories to explain the nature of agency regardless of the provisions of our Civil Code. However, in light of Article 130 of that Code, a contract made by an agent without authority is not effective, if he does not receive the confirmation of principal. It is difficult to understand the logic that take the agenda of an representative agent who is only non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. The regulations on representative agent are also subject to only ‘principal is responsible to’(Article 125, Article 126) or ‘principal can not resist’. It dose not take the agenda non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. In principle, agency authority abusing conduct itself is a substitute effect, unlike the case of the application of theory on the abuse of agency authority, since it fulfills all the requirements of legitimate agent's conduct. However, if the other party of agent knew or could know the betrayal intention of the agent, the effect of the agent’s conduct is blocked for the protection of the principal. Therefore, the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be limited as much as possible, and it is not reasonable to apply this to non-authorized representative agent. I think that the attribution of legal effects by non-authorized representative agent’s conduct to the principal and the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be discussed separately. It is better to reorganize their legal relationship based on the fact that the agent has acted an abuse of agency authority and that the other party knew or could have known about it. It is obvious that if non-authorized representative agent is established and he has done the action on abuse of agency authority, therefore the principal has the effect of the agency and he will be harmed inevitably. In order to convey these damages of the principal, it will be possible for authority abusing agent and his other side to bear liability of tort based on the betrayal intention of non-authorized representative agent and the malice or negligence of the other party.