Even if real estate is in the name of the plaintiff on the register, if the plaintiff leaves the Republic of Korea for studying abroad, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to presume that the plaintiff entrusted the right to manage the real estate to "A" who is his father.

Even if a real estate is in the name of the plaintiff on the register, if the plaintiff is a student status, this real estate is commonly presumed to have been purchased by its father, and only the registration was made in the name of the plaintiff, or otherwise was donated to the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it may be presumed that the plaintiff had implicitly delegated the right to manage the real estate upon departure to the above "A".

Article 114 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korean Commercial Bank, Inc.

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2889 delivered on May 14, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2889 delivered on May 14, 1970

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the registration of the establishment of a real estate in this case, based on its timely evidence, should be cancelled only by the registration of the additional registration to change the address of the original case, the additional registration to change the indication, and the registration of the establishment of superficies, shall be cancelled in all of the registration registration of the establishment of a new real estate, and the registration of the establishment of a superficies shall be cancelled only by the registration of the establishment of a new real estate, because the plaintiff, his father, who was his father, was separated from his father, and was living in South and North, even though he did not grant any authority to him, although he did not grant any authority to him.

However, even if this real estate is in the name of the plaintiff on the register, it is common to view that the plaintiff purchased this real estate in the name of the plaintiff, his father, and only registered it, or if not, the plaintiff donated it to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff should be presumed to have implicitly delegated the right to manage the real estate at the time of departure to the non-party 1, his father, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, because the plaintiff's purchase of this real estate in his own money is likely to waste its disposal. Thus, the plaintiff should be presumed to have implicitly delegated the right to manage the real estate to the non-party 1, his father, and even if the non-party 1 was living together with his father, it is actually recognized that such act does not constitute a cause for the plaintiff to not grant the right to manage the above real estate to the plaintiff, even though it was not considered to be a reason for the plaintiff to not grant it to the plaintiff. Thus, the court below's decision has an error of law due to lack of merit in granting the right to manage the real estate before departure.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng