[근저당권설정등기말소][공1992.1.15.(912),297]
A. Whether the act of setting up a collateral security on the real estate owned by the minor by the mother who is a person with parental authority at his/her own expense with the third party's debt against the third party can be deemed as "act of conflicting interest between the person with parental authority who is a legal
B. Whether the mother, who is a person with parental authority, offered real estate owned by the minor as security to a third party for his/her business of improper omission, and the third party also knew of such circumstances, whether the mother's act of establishing a collective security right constitutes "the case of abuse of parental authority" (negative)
A. The act of setting up a right to collateral security on a real estate owned by a minor as the security for the obligation to a third party of his omission by the mother who is a person with parental authority cannot be deemed as "an act of conflicting interest between a person with parental authority who is a legal representative and his/her own person" under Article 921 (1) of the Civil Act, even if the act of setting up such
B. Although the mother, who is a person with parental authority of a minor, provided real estate owned by the minor to a third party for his/her improper business even though he/she merely gives disadvantages to the minor, and even if the third party was well aware of such circumstances, the act of establishing a collective security right by the mother does not necessarily constitute “the case where the parent abused his/her parental authority immediately.”
A. Article 921(1)/B of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
East Water Industry Corporation
Gwangju District Court Decision 90Na352 delivered on July 26, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1
Even if the mother who is a person with parental authority of a minor establishes the right to collateral security on the real estate owned by the minor as the security for the obligation to a third party of his omission, the act of creating the right to collateral security on the real estate owned by the minor for the debtor, such as the theory of lawsuit, and only gives disadvantages to the minor, it cannot be viewed as "an act in conflict with the person with parental authority who is a legal representative and his/her own person"
2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2
Even if the mother, who is a person with parental authority, provided real estate owned by the plaintiff for his own business as a security even though only gives disadvantage to the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff's theory of lawsuit, and even if the defendant was well aware of such circumstances, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as a case where the establishment of the right to collateral security by the plaintiff's mother directly abused parental authority. Thus, there is no reason to discuss.
3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)