[2] The case holding that the act of donation by a person with parental authority (the deceased’s wife) to the deceased’s land inherited jointly with his/her minor ancestor does not constitute abuse of parental authority in consideration of the possibility that the land in the deceased’s name might have been trusted out of title

[2] The case holding that the act of donation by a person with parental authority (the deceased's wife) to the deceased's land inherited jointly with his/her minor father does not constitute abuse of parental authority in consideration of the possibility that the land in the deceased's name might have been trusted out of title.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Unless a legal act by a person with parental authority does not constitute an act of interest conflict between a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority, it shall be deemed that the person with parental authority, who exercises parental authority on his/her behalf, leave the discretion to conduct such act in consideration of various circumstances surrounding the person with parental authority. As such, with respect to a disposal act of the property owned by a person with parental authority on his/her behalf, it shall not be readily concluded that such act constitutes abuse of the authority by a person with parental authority, unless there exist any circumstances deemed significantly contrary to the purport of the law granting the person with parental authority on his/her behalf, such as disregarding his/her own interests and promoting the interests of the person with parental authority or a third party.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above plaintiff 2's claim that the deceased's act of transferring ownership based on inheritance in the name of the plaintiff 1 (the deceased's 1/2 of April 1954 and the deceased's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

According to the above legal principles, the issue of whether a person with parental authority's disposal of the property of a minor person constitutes abuse of parental authority should not be determined only from the objective and objective point of view that it is deemed loss of the disposal property, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. It should be proved that the act of donation of each of the above land in this case constitutes abuse of parental authority on an exceptional basis from a comprehensive basis by adding the subjective and objective circumstances such as the conflict of interest between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority over the disposition, the conflict of interest between the interested parties related to the above disposition, and the developments leading up to the above disposition, and the related interested parties' opinions and intentions, etc., and according to the records, the court below's judgment is justified in holding that the above act of donation of each of the above land in this case is not abuse of parental authority on the condition that the above land was transferred in the same situation to the deceased as the defendant's assertion. Thus, the above act of donation of each of the above land in this case is not an abuse of parental authority on the ground of such circumstances.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the abuse of parental authority or the presumption of legal registration, and it is not inconsistent with the judgment of the court below and the legal principles in that the Supreme Court Decision 96Da43928 delivered on January 24, 1997, which cited in the ground of appeal, is different from the case, and that the act of disposal is null and void only when the abuse of parental authority is proved on the premise that the exercise of parental authority belongs to the discretionary act of the person with parental authority

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The selection of evidence and fact-finding belong to the full power of the fact-finding court unless there are special circumstances such as violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

원심은 이 사건 증여의 의사표시가 피고를 비롯한 시댁식구들의 협박과 폭언에 견디다 못해 이루어진 것이어서 무효라고 하는 원고들의 주장에 대하여 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다는 이유로 이를 배척하였는바, 위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면 위와 같은 원심의 판단은 정당하다.

The ground of appeal purporting that the lower court erred in its fact-finding and judgment on this part is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)