(b) Whether the act of disposal affects the principal where the principal has ratified after disposing of another person's rights under his own name.

(b) Where the rights of another person are disposed of in his own name or disposed of as his own rights, and the principal subsequently recognizes such disposal act, such disposal act shall affect the principal unless there exist any special reasons.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. The real estate of this case is originally owned by the deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 2. The above non-party 1 died on February 28, 1962 and succeeded to the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The non-party 3 registered the ownership transfer in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership in the name of the defendant who is himself and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1's children on March 15, 1971 by false guarantee certificates and confirmations. The defendant, who became aware of the above acts of the above non-party 3, filed a lawsuit against the above non-party 3 for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration after obtaining a final judgment of winning the lawsuit against the above non-party 3, completed the ownership transfer registration. Accordingly, the defendant recognized the fact that one-half share of the real estate of this case was registered the ownership transfer registration in its own name and without consent of the plaintiffs 80 million won, non-party 50 million won, and the non-party 16.37.

B. As to the plaintiffs' assertion that the above non-party 1-2 shares in the real estate of this case were jointly inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendant, but not passed by the right holder of 6/11, the defendant arbitrarily disposed of the shares and paid the price in full, and thus, the compensation for damages caused by the tort or the return of unjust enrichment is sought,

C. One-half of the deceased non-party 1-2's share in the real estate of this case is jointly inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendant, and one-half of the shares are transferred without the consent of the plaintiffs, the registration of transfer of the share in the defendant's name is null and void against the inheritance shares of the plaintiffs. Therefore, since the registration of transfer of the share in the name of the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 is null and void, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs lost their share in this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim for damages incurred by non-party 5 and non-party 6's failure to use or make profits from their share in this case's co-ownership right or compensation for expenses for the restoration of the name of the registration is sought, on the premise that the plaintiffs lost their share in inheritance itself, the claim of this case seeking compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment is rejected without any further reason.

2. If the facts are found by the court below, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have lost their respective co-ownership rights inherited by them under law, and the fact that the registration title can be restored by claiming the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the plaintiffs' co-ownership rights against the defendant, the defendant, and the non-party 5 and the non-party 6. However, even if so, the defendant acquired the part of the plaintiffs' co-ownership rights of the above purchase price without any legal ground, and the plaintiffs' claim for return on the premise of the ratification of the sale of co-ownership rights of the plaintiffs,

3. Where a person disposes of another person's rights in his/her own name or disposes of another person's rights in his/her own name and then such disposal act is recognized, the validity of such disposal act is effective on the person himself/herself unless there exist any special reasons (see Supreme Court Decision 87Da2238, Oct. 11, 198). In cases where the plaintiffs claims cancellation of registration against the defendant, the above non-party 5, and the above non-party 6, the plaintiffs cannot claim the refund of the purchase price received by the defendant. However, it is natural that the plaintiffs cannot claim the refund of the purchase price received by the defendant. However, if the plaintiffs did not exercise the right to claim cancellation and claim the refund of the money equivalent to the plaintiffs' shares out of the purchase price received by the defendant, it is reasonable for the defendant to pay it. Accordingly, if the plaintiffs refund the purchase price equivalent to the plaintiffs' shares

The court below should determine the legitimacy of the claim of this case by clarifying whether the plaintiffs filed the claim of this case in duplicate with the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as to their co-ownership right, or whether the defendant's disposal act in receipt of the refund of the purchase price from the defendant is confirmed.

4. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to ratification of unjust enrichment or an act of disposal by an unentitled person, nor by exceeding the limit of this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)