(a) the meaning of the “e-mail” under Article 921 of the Civil Act

B. Whether the agreement on the division of jointly inherited property between a person with parental authority who is a co-inheritors and a minor person constitutes an act of conflicting interest under Paragraph (a) (affirmative)

(c) Validity of an agreement on the division of jointly inherited property, in violation of Article 921 of the Civil Act;

A. The term “this act” under Article 921 of the Civil Act refers to an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between a person with a parental authority and a person subject to parental authority or between the persons subject to parental authority by nature of the objective act, and is not to ask whether there is a conflict of interest as a result of the act or the intention of a person with parental authority.

B. The agreement on the division of jointly inherited property is an act that is likely to cause conflict of interests between heirs due to the objective nature of the act. Therefore, in case where the agreement on the division of inherited property is reached between a person with parental authority who is a co-inheritors and a minor person, a special representative shall be appointed for each minor and each special representative shall consult on the division of inherited property on behalf

C. If a person with parental authority holds an agreement on the division of inherited property as a legal representative of several minors, it is in violation of Article 921 of the Civil Act, and the agreement on the division of inherited property established by such acting act is null and void unless there is ratification by all the persons so represented

(b)Article 921(b) of the Civil Code; Article 1013 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da1113 delivered on July 27, 1971 (No. 1925) (Gong225) 75Da2340 delivered on March 9, 1976 (Gong1976,9060). Supreme Court Decision 85Meu80 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987,645) (Gong193,1143)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Law Firm North East-dong Office, Attorney Lee Jong-seok, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na31509 delivered on November 10, 1992

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above non-party 1 was originally owned by the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 5, and the non-party 6, who were his wife, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the non-party 6, who were his wife, were co-inheritors. On September 6, 1977, the non-party 3 died and was his wife, the non-party 7, the non-party 8, and the non-party 9, who were his wife, were his wife, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the court below rejected the above non-party 7's claim that the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, who was a minor's heir, did not have the right of parental authority over each of the above real estate under the non-party 2's own name or the non-party 9.

However, the act of conflict of interest under Article 921 of the Civil Code refers to an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between a person with a parental authority and his/her child or among several persons subject to the parental authority due to the objective nature of the act. Therefore, the agreement on the division of inherited property is an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest among heirs due to the objective nature of the act. Thus, if the agreement on the division of inherited property is reached between a person with parental authority and a minor child, each special representative must appoint a special representative for each minor and hold an agreement on the division of inherited property on behalf of each minor. If a person with parental authority as a minor's legal representative has reached an agreement on the division of inherited property, it is in violation of Article 921 of the Civil Code, and thus the agreement on the division of inherited property established by such act is null and void unless there is ratification by all the persons subject to the parental authority. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 921 of the Civil Code, which affected the conclusion of the agreement.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)