According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the real estate of this case was originally owned by Nonparty 1, and that he died on October 22, 1945, and that Defendant 1 inherited it as his son as his son, and that the above Defendant separated the above forest land from Nonparty 1’s inherited property including the above real estate on March 28, 1950. The court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the above agreement was null and void on the ground that the above agreement was null and void since the Defendants did not appoint a special representative to act contrary to the interests of the above Defendant at the time, and that the son’s guardian, his guardian, was a minor at the time of the above Defendant, and the above agreement between the Plaintiff and the above Defendant to occupy the above real estate was no longer a minor at the time, and the agreement between the Plaintiff and the above Defendant did not constitute an act contrary to the above agreement between the Defendant and his guardian, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion was no longer reasonable.

However, according to the records, the facts of the defendant's assertion (the defendant's legal brief on April 10, 1980) are not the same as the judgment of the court below, but the above subdivision agreement at the time when the plaintiff is a guardian of the above defendant, who is the legal representative of the above defendant, was the other party on the other hand. Thus, it is clear that it was the purport that it was invalid as an act contrary to the interests between the above defendant as a minor and the plaintiff who is his guardian.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below as to the defendants' assertion shall be clearly stated that the defendants' assertion was erroneous and made. Therefore, it shall be viewed whether such errors of the court below affected the judgment or not.

According to each of the evidence invoked by the court below in finding the above subdivision agreement in its decision, it is clear that the above defendant who was a minor at the time had no parent entitled to exercise parental authority, there was no designated guardian or legal guardian, and the family council member was appointed by the court's decision on February 14, 1950 to appoint the above defendant's guardian, and that the plaintiff was appointed as the above defendant's guardian after being convened February 20, 1950 and was appointed as the above defendant's guardian. On the other hand, when concluding the subdivision agreement, the plaintiff was represented as the above defendant's guardian on the other hand, and on the other hand, it appears that he was the other party's position.

However, when a family council appoints a guardian in accordance with the current Civil Code, the supervisor of guardianship must be appointed immediately, and with respect to an act against the interests of the guardian and the ward, the supervisor of guardianship shall act on behalf of the ward, and if the guardian acts against the ward and the interests of the ward without the supervisor of guardianship, an act against the ward and the interests of the ward may not take any effect without the ratification of the principal, and in this case, the agreement above shall be deemed to be an act against the interests of the two persons as the guardian of the above defendant, and thus, it shall not be effective against the above defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendants' above assertion and accepted the plaintiff's claim against it for reasons as stated in the above. It is difficult for the court below to avoid criticism that the judgment of the defendants was reversed due to the misunderstanding of the defendants' assertion, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, it is reasonable to point out this point.

Therefore, this appeal is with merit, and it is reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)