(a) Requirements for division of inherited property through consultation;

(b) The validity of the act of conflicting interest without appointing a special representative of a minor.

A. Division of inherited property by agreement shall be effective with the consent of all co-inheritors, and if there is no consent of one of the co-inheritors, or if there is any defect in the power of representation in such declaration of intention, the division shall be null and void.

B. The agreement on the division of inherited property with respect to the inherited property constitutes an act contrary to the interest under Article 921 of the Civil Act, and thus, the agreement on the division of inherited property is null and void without a special representative of the minor.

A. Article 1013 of the Civil Act; Article 921 of the Civil Act

Claimant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Appellant 1 and six others (Law Firm Kim Jong-hee, Attorney Kim Jong-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 84Reu151 delivered on October 21, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the above property of non-party 1, who is his wife, 2, 1, 2 and 3, who is his wife, 1, 2 and 3, and the claimant 2 is the legal representative of his wife and 3, and the claimant 2, 2 and 2, 3, the defendant's biological mother and 2, the defendant representing the defendant 3, and 5, the defendant's biological mother representing the defendant 3, on two occasions including November 9, 1981 and January 10, 1982, the defendant 1 and 2, who is a minor, did not have the above legal representative's share of inherited property at the time of the above judgment, and the defendant 1 and 2, who is a minor's legal representative, did not have the legal representative's share of inherited property at the time of the above judgment, and the defendant 1 and 2, who is a minor's legal representative, did not have the above legal representative's share of inherited property at the time of the claimant 1 and 2.

The judgment of the court below is examined in comparison with the record and judgment of the court below. The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and the agreement on division of the above inherited property will be disadvantage only to the claimant 2 who is a legal representative, and it shall not be regarded as benefit to the claimant 1 and the respondent 3 who is a minor, and there is no error of law in interpreting the provisions of the Civil Act as pointed out in the judgment of the court below.

(2) According to the records, the assertion that the special representative was appointed and confirmed by his agent against the respondent 3 who suffered some disadvantage following the division agreement of the inherited property of this case is clear that the respondent's legal representative was a new fact that was asserted only in the final appeal. Thus, the defendant's legal representative cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal against the judgment below. All arguments are groundless.

(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)