All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2023Da225580 Decided January 4, 2024 【Assignment of Shares】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether the provisions concerning agency may be applied mutatis mutandis to quasi-juristic acts such as “service of a notice of an intention or an idea” (affirmative) Whether an agent’s declaration of an intent that the said agent is acting for a principal may be made in an implied manner (affirmative) and where, even though the agent did not notify that he or she acts on the principal’s behalf, the counterparty either knew or could have known, based on various circumstances, that the agent was acting on behalf of the principal, whether the acts of the agent may be considered valid as a lawful act of agency (affirmative) [2] Standards for distinguishing between an agent and a messenger Whether these standards are applicable in a case where whether a defense counsel, who intervened as an advisory for one party in a series of the processes of negotiations for the conclusion of a contract between the parties concerned, which entails the creation of various rights and duties and legal liabilities, has acted as an agent or a mere messenger is disputed (affirmative) [3] Meaning of “other general legal affairs” in Article 109 Subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act, and in a case where attorneys-at-law of a law office, who are considered as one attorney-at-law pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Attorney-at-law Act, have accepted a case brought by parties whose legal interests are directly adverse to one another, whether such a case constitutes the representation of both parties, which is prohibited in principle in accordance with Article 31(1)1 of the Attorney-at-law Act (affirmative) [4] In a case where an attorney has violated restrictions on the acceptance of a case pursuant to Article 31(1)1 of the Attorney-at-law Act, whether the representation of both parties may be considered valid only for those cases where the principal has given consent to such an act pursuant to Article 124 of the Civil Act (affirmative) Where the burden of argumentation and attestation of the existence of the principal’s permission lies (held: an entity who argues for the validity of the representation of both parties), and whether the “consent” of the principal may be provided in an implied manner or by way of retroactive ratification (affirmative) | |
