(a) Whether a request for a trial seeking the appointment of a family council member and the convocation of a family council member after the enforcement of the amended Civil Act (No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990) to which the system of selection of the adopted child was abolished (negative)

B. In a case where a request for a trial seeking the appointment of a family council member for the selection of a post-employed person and the convocation of a family council is filed before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, whether a post-employed person may be selected by applying the amended Civil Act after the enforcement of the amended Civil Act (negative), and whether a post-employed person may be selected by applying the previous provisions of the Civil Act based on Article 3 or Article 4 of the Addenda to the Regulations

C. Whether the request for the appointment of a family council member for the selection of a person to be adopted for a post-support for the interest of the deceased or the deceased should be accepted notwithstanding the amendment of the Civil Act (negative)

A. Since there is no room for the appointment of a family council member or the convocation of a family council for the selection of a post-employed person after the enforcement of the amended Civil Act (No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990), a request for a trial seeking the appointment of a family council member for the selection of a post-employed person and the convocation of a family council is unlawful.

B. Even if a request for a trial seeking the appointment of a family council member for the selection of a post-employed person and the convocation of a family council was filed before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, the post-employed person cannot be selected by applying the amended Civil Act after the enforcement of the amended Civil Act. In this case, it cannot be interpreted that the post-employed person may be selected by applying the previous Civil Act provisions based on Article 3 or Article 4 of

C. The amendment of the Civil Act to delete, abolish, and delete Article 108 of the Family Register Act for the sake of the entry, the request for appointment of a family council member in order to select a person who is ex post facto for the sake of the interest of the death or the death of a person who is ex post facto, shall not be accepted in spite of the amendment of the Civil Act.

A. (B) Article 1 of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 867 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act; Article 3 of the Addenda of the Family Litigation Act; Article 226 of the Civil Act (Institution of Lawsuit). Article 3 and Article 4 of the Addenda of the Family Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4298, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 108 of the Remedial Act (amended by Act No. 4298, Dec. 31, 199)

Re-appellant

Daegu District Court Order 91.4.12, 91B2

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Since the Civil Code was amended by Act No. 4199 on January 13, 1990, Article 867 and Article 868 on the adopted child was deleted, and the system of selection of the adopted child was abolished, it would be difficult to appoint a family council member or convene a family council for the selection of the adopted child after the enforcement of the amended Civil Code.

Therefore, it is justifiable for the court below to maintain the first instance court's first instance court's measure rejecting the appeal of this case, which sought the appointment of family council members and the convocation of family council members for the ex post facto adoption of persons who had already died on January 7, 1951, on the ground that there is no legal ground for the appointment of family council members for the deceased.

Although the instant adjudication was filed on December 21, 1990 prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, it cannot be said that an ex post facto guardian may not be selected by applying the Civil Act prior to the amendment. Article 3 or Article 4 of the Addenda to the Regulations on Family Litigation provides for a transitional provision regarding a continuous case. Based on this, if a family council member is appointed to the court prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act and a request for the convening of the family council is filed, it cannot be interpreted that an ex post facto guardian may be selected by applying the previous provisions of the Civil Act.

In addition, the amendment of the Civil Act, as seen above, excluded not only the provision on the post-helper under Article 867(1) of the Civil Act, but also the provision on the post-helper in order to care for the abolition or absence of the provision under Article 867(2) of the Act. Since the abolition of the Act No. 4298 on December 31, 1990 by Act No. 4298 of Dec. 31, 190, the provision of Article 108 of the Family Register Act concerning the entry of a report of interest was deleted, it is only an independent opinion that asserts that the request for appointment of a family council member to select a post-helper to care for interest without closure or termination should be accepted in spite of

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)