According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, where the administrator of the absentee property establishes the right to collateral for the purpose of securing the obligation of others without obtaining permission for sale of the property of an absentee, the act of creating the right to collateral cannot be deemed to have been conducted without permission on the ground that it is not necessary to obtain permission on the establishment of the right to collateral for the purpose of securing the obligation of others, and it cannot be deemed to be an anti-social act without permission on the ground that it does not constitute an anti-social act. Thus, the decision of the court below is rejected without appeal against the decision of dismissal of the applicant's objection against the decision of voluntary decision of refusal of auction on the real property of this case. However, the purport of the absentee property management system is to allow the administrator of the absentee to obtain social and economic benefits along with his remaining property of the absentee, and to transfer all property which he or his heir manages and takes over for the interest of the remaining spouse and his heir. The appointed administrator of the court is a kind of legal representative appointed by the court at the request of the person provided for in Acts and subordinate statutes, and it should be limited to the act of disposal beyond the scope of the above duty of the court.

According to the records, the non-party 1, who is an absentee property administrator by the appointment of the court on June 4, 1963 with the permission for the sale of the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the property administrator of the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, for the above non-party 1, who is the property administrator of the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, 25, for the above non-party 1, 1965, as security against the Central District Court No. 231, 440, the non-party 1, 1965, and the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2,000,000 won.

In addition, even if an absentee administrator obtained permission to sell the property from the other party to this case, the act of creating a right to collateral security on the absentee's property only for the guarantee of other's obligations that do not have any relationship with the absentee as above shall be considered as an act of establishing the right to collateral security on the absentee's property, and in ordinary cases, it shall not be deemed as an act that is natural and unreasonable in light of the empirical rule as an act of disposal for the absentee. Thus, if there is any justifiable reason to believe that such act was an act of disposal for the absentee, if there is no other reason to believe that it was an act of disposal for the absentee, it shall not be deemed as an act of obligatory negligence in trust

Therefore, the court below's decision that did not reach the above should be judged without examining the above matters, etc., and it is reasonable that the court below erred by misapprehending the purpose of the absentee property management system or the legal principles concerning the scope of the act of disposal and the act of expression representation in excess of the authority. Thus, the court below's decision that did not make a decision on other arguments should not be reversed.

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Northern District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)