B. Requirements for rescinding a contract of gift under Article 557 of the Civil Act

(c) limitations on, and applicable cases of, the exercise of the right to know;

D. Whether the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990) is appropriate in a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer against a minor child (negative)

B. The rescission of a contract of gift under Article 557 of the Civil Act shall meet the requirements, such as that the property status at the time of donation and its subsequent comparison would significantly change when compared to the property status at the time of donation, and that the ownership of real estate for the purpose of donation will be transferred to the donee, thereby significantly affecting

C. The court's exercise of the right to request a tiny may not urge or induce the parties to present a new attack methods or facts that are not alleged by the parties beyond the extent that it is possible to point out that there is any contradiction or uncertainty among the parties' arguments and give them an opportunity to correct and supplement them, and to urge them to present the allegations that are legally or logically required by the assertion itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below erred by failing to issue an explanation as to the request for cancellation of a gift, which is not based on the document that was not alleged by the plaintiff.

D. According to Article 909(4) of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990), both mothers’ claim for ownership transfer registration against a minor child constitutes an act of conflicting interest under Article 921(1) of the Civil Act, and the natural parent of both parents cannot be a person with parental authority over the married child. As such, the court appointed a special representative and decided that the special representative or the legal representative who has been duly granted the power of attorney from him/her should be the legal representative, and that the court judged that the litigation of the natural parents who cannot be a person with parental authority is legitimate.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the provisional registration of ownership transfer registration or ownership transfer right preservation was made for the real estate in this case by the plaintiff's donation is made for the purpose of the plaintiff's donation, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence against the theory of lawsuit.

The facts of the title truster's possession of documents such as a registration certificate are identical to the theory that the title truster's assertion is a fluent evidence supporting title trust. However, according to the legal reasoning of the court below, the plaintiff's name was entered in the above defendant's family register as the mother of defendant 1. On January 16, 1984, the real estate stated in attached Tables 1 through 4 is testamentary to the above defendant 3, defendant 2, 4, and 5 who is the above defendant's wife and the above defendant's wife, and the defendant 2 was adopted on June 11, 1986. On April 17, 1987, the defendant 1 and 3 were appointed as an administrator of the real estate of this case, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's transfer registration fee was entered in the list of real estate in accordance with the above list No. 3 and No. 4 of the real estate in this case's list No. 1867, Jun. 16, 1987.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The rescission of a contract of gift pursuant to Article 557 of the Civil Act shall meet the requirements, such as that the property status at the time of donation and the ownership of the real estate for the purpose of donation will be significantly affected if the ownership of the real estate for the purpose of donation is transferred to the donee due to a significant change in comparison with the property status at the time of donation (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da1833, Oct. 12, 197

In this regard, the court below's rejection of a letter of cancellation of a gift contract under Article 557 of the Civil Act concerning the plaintiff's above real estate on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff's living was difficult due to the aggravation of the plaintiff's property status, if the court below donated the real estate listed in the attached list 5 and 6 among the real estate in this case to the defendant 1, and implemented it, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the cancellation of a gift contract, or in violation of the rules of evidence such as neglecting the determination of evidence.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

According to the statement on August 20, 1990 by the plaintiff's agent stated at the 14th date for pleading of the court below, the plaintiff's agent asserted the cancellation due to changes in the plaintiff's property status and the cancellation due to the defendants' criminal acts or failure to perform obligations to support the gift of this case, and there was no ground for rejection of judgment on the ground that the court below did not judge the above assertion on the ground that it did not follow the document.

In addition, the court's exercise of the right to request a tiny may not urge or induce the parties to make any new attack methods or facts that are not alleged by them in excess of the extent, even if there is any inconsistency or uncertainty among the parties' arguments, and the opportunity to correct or supplement them, and demands the allegations that are required by law or logic by the alleged parties themselves. Therefore, the court's error cannot be said that the court below failed to make a tiny as to the claim for cancellation of a gift not based on the document that was not alleged by the plaintiff. The arguments are groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

According to Article 909(4) of the Civil Act, the natural parents of both parties shall not be the person in parental authority over the person in parental authority. According to Article 921(1) of the Civil Act, when the person in parental authority, who is a legal representative, and the person in parental authority, who acts in conflict with the interest of the said person, the person in parental authority shall demand the court to appoint the person in parental authority. According to the records, the defendant 2 is the minor of March 1, 1972, and the plaintiff is the legal representative of the above defendant. The lawsuit in this case is seeking the registration of ownership transfer against the above defendant, and there is a conflict of interest between the two parties. Thus, the court below shall appoint the special representative of the above defendant and have the legal representative who has been duly granted the power of attorney from him, but the legal representative of the defendant 1 and 3 cannot be the person in parental authority over the above defendant, and the legal representative of the defendant who has been granted the power of attorney from them shall be legitimate, and the judgment of the court below and the legal representative are unlawful.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)