The special appeal by the special appellant 1 is dismissed.

The court to which the case was remanded from the Re-appeal Court is bound by the court of final appeal, as to the factual and legal judgment rendered by the Re-appeal Court as the reason for reversal, unless new arguments and evidence are presented during the trial process after remand, and changes in facts constituting the basis for stenographic judgment occur.

For its reasons, the judgment of remanding a party member can replace an administrator at any time if there is a reason deemed inappropriate for the appointed administrator or if there are other special circumstances, the court may replace the administrator at any time. However, in light of the purpose of the absentee property management system, it belongs to the discretionary act of the court. The records show that the property owned by the absentee was owned by non-party 1 and non-party 2 in a special port and special network and non-party 2, and the special appellant 2 and non-party 2 are in co-ownership of the property as his heir, as well as the special appellant 2 and non-party 2 are in co-ownership of the property as his heir, and the mother of the non-party 1 in the case and the non-party 2 in the case of the non-party 2 in the case of the non-party 2 in the case, the appointment of a special appellant as an administrator should be made only by the above reasons, and the appointment of an administrator should be made by the replacement of the property administrator without any special reasons and the appointment of the administrator.

However, in light of the record, the court below, upon examining the case in question, examined and examined the case in question, can be seen that the case in question was examined and examined by explaining the reasons why the judgment of remand cannot be deemed a ground for replacement, except where the documents were adopted as supporting documents, and the case is examined by examining the special appellant 2, special appellant 3, and special appellant 1, the special appellant 3, and the special appellant 1. Thus, this only does not show that the above judgment of remanding party members can support the existence of special reasons to replace the property administrator of this case as the reason for reversal, and there is no assertion or proof that there is no change in facts that form the basis for the binding judgment of remand.

Nevertheless, the court below, after remanding the absentee case, dismissed the 2 administrator of the absentee case as a special representative, while maintaining the 1 administrator of the absentee case as a special representative 2, and appointed the 2 administrator of the absentee case as an 2 administrator of the absentee case, did not constitute an unlawful violation of law by misunderstanding the binding force of the judgment of reversed and remanded and the legal principles of appointment of an administrator of absentee. The argument is with merit.

2. The grounds for special appeal by 1 of the special appellant shall be deemed to be.

As above, the judgment of the court below shall be unlawful after remand, and it cannot be maintained that the court below appointed the non-party 3 as an administrator of the non-party 2, and further, it cannot be admitted as the argument that the non-party 1's administrator of the non-party 1's case is replaced to the non-party 3.

The judgment of remand held that there is no conduct that two special appellants are not qualified as an estate administrator on their grounds, and that it is also the same in consideration of the applicant's reasons for non-influence as an estate administrator while seeking replacement. After remanding the case, the court below did not prove that 2 special appellants are not qualified as an estate administrator in addition to the reasons for non-influence as an estate administrator at the time of the request for replacement. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, since the special appeal of this case by a special appellant 2 is well-grounded, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeju District Court, and the special appeal of this case by a special appellant 1 is without merit, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)