表見代理와 無權代理의 關係

Abstract

What is the aim of discussing on relation between apparent agency and unauthorized agency? According to the generally accepted opinions, it is said to determine whether §130 and the following provisions in Korean Civil Act provisions concerning unauthorized agency are applicable to apparent authority. Majority scholars purport that representing act of an apparent agent takes effect after the other party's invoking apparent agency doctrine. The writer has the view that representing act of the apparent agent takes effect from the very time of conclusion of contract without invoking of apparent authority. Most scholars believe this difference should affect the answer of above-raising problem. But the writer asserts in this article that the repealed Korean Civil Procedure Act reduces this difference greatly, as the Act enacted the provisions for preliminary or selective co-litigation(§70). The other raising problem in this article is whether the principal's imputable attribute should be required in applying the apparent agency doctrine. Contrary to the view of majority scholars, the writer holds the affirmative view, as this view can explain the position of agency by toleration or agency by ostensibility. In drawing this conclusion, the writer analyses the several cases about apparent representation directors.