logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.09.14 2017나616
구상금
Text

1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor against the defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 2005, E, the father of the Defendants died on December 4, 2005, and the heir was the co-defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the first instance court, the spouse, and the Defendants, the minor children.

B. Defendant B’s special agent Ha and Defendant C’s special agent Ha reported for the Defendants the waiver of the inheritance of the deceased E’s property on March 6, 2006 at the Busan District Court’s Family Branch 2006Ra372, and the said court accepted the said waiver of inheritance on March 6, 2006.

C. On August 1, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against A and the Defendants, and A did not submit a written response to the instant lawsuit, even though they were served with the Defendants’ legal representative at their domicile as the Defendants’ legal representative.

Accordingly, the court of first instance rendered a judgment without pleading citing both the plaintiff's claims against Gap and the defendants, and the original copy of the judgment was served on Gap who is the person in parental authority of the defendants.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul's statement of No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. In light of the objective nature of the act in this context, the act is likely to cause conflict of interest between a person with parental authority and his/her child or between the persons subject to parental authority by virtue of the objective nature of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da10270, Nov. 22, 1996). Whether there is a conflict of interest as a result of a person with parental authority’s intent or its act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da10270, Nov. 22, 1996). In a case where a person with parental authority does not go against a minor and a person with parental authority without a special representative, the act is deemed an act without parental authority, and thus

(See Supreme Court Decision 63Da547 Decided August 31, 1964, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27189 Decided January 24, 2013). Where an unauthorized representative performs a lawsuit and is served with the original copy of the judgment, the parties concerned shall serve the fact that the lawsuit is pending and the original copy of the judgment without negligence.

arrow