Where a guardian sells real estate of a ward without the consent of the family council, the method of exercising the right of cancellation;

In accordance with Article 950(2) of the Civil Act, a minor or family council shall have the right to cancel a juristic act in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, and the duration of the right to cancel as stipulated in Article 146 of the Civil Act, as the right to form a right to create a juristic act in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, shall be deemed to be the exclusion period, but the right to cancel is not limited to the judicial exercise

Articles 146 and 950 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Daejeon District Court Decision 92Na1337 delivered on October 21, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

1. The court below acknowledged that: (a) the deceased non-party 1, who is the owner of the land of this case, died on April 26, 1983; (b) the plaintiff's wife; and (c) the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the plaintiff jointly inherited the deceased's property; (d) on August 20, 198, the above non-party 2 sold his inherited shares to the defendants on the above land; and (e) on August 23, 198, the above non-party sold the inheritance shares to the defendants; and (e) the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 18, 1969 under the name of the defendants; and (e) the above non-party 2 did not obtain the plaintiff's consent while disposing of the plaintiff's shares to the land of this case as above; (e) thus, (e) the plaintiff's right to request the cancellation of the sale and purchase agreement of the plaintiff's shares; (e) the plaintiff's right to claim for the cancellation of ownership within 960 years.

2. A minor or family council has the right to cancel a juristic act in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1) pursuant to Article 950(2) of the Civil Act, and the term of the right to cancel under Article 146 of the Civil Act, is the right to form a legal act in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, and the term of the right to cancel under Article 146 of the Civil Act, shall be deemed to be the limitation period (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu991, Nov. 8, 198). However, the right shall not be exercised within the limitation

Therefore, as the court below duly established the factual relations, if the plaintiff revoked the above trading act with respect to his own share on April 16, 1990, which was before the expiration of three years from August 20, 1988, for which the above sales contract was concluded by the plaintiff, the above trading act with respect to the share owned by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been legally revoked at that time.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff's right of revocation to which Article 146 of the Civil Act applies must not be exercised within the exclusion period, and that the plaintiff's right of revocation should not be exercised in a way other than a trial, and when the lawsuit in this case is filed, the right of revocation has already been extinguished after the exclusion period has already expired. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of exercising the right of revocation, and it is clear that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)