Whether there is a relationship between the absentee and the eighth degree of relationship in the property management of the absentee, and whether there is a right of association as to the property.

The first instance court's decision on the replacement of a property administrator without filing a written lawsuit on the property administrator cannot be deemed unlawful.

Article 22 of the Civil Code, Article 34(1) of the Family Trial Rules

A

B

Seoul Family Order 65B1 dated April 30, 1965

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal No. 1 of the reappeal are examined as follows:

(1) According to Article 34(1) of the Family Trial Rules, the first instance court's dismissal of the Re-Appellant as the administrator of the non-appellant and appointing the representative director F of E Co., Ltd. as the administrator of the non-appellant is legitimate. The second instance court's dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it is legitimate for the first instance court to dismiss the Re-Appellant to dismiss the Re-Appellant as the administrator of the non-appellant, and the second instance court's ex officio questioning the non-appellant G, and the second instance court's dismissal of the replacement decision on the ground that the non-appellant was not erroneous. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the court below did not err by misapprehending the interpretation of each legal provision cited by the court below on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of each legal provision.

The grounds of re-appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The first instance court did not examine an administrator of property and replaced or corrected it, and the second instance court appointed an administrator of the absentee on April 29, 1963, and the second instance court did not admit that the court below did not recognize the fact that the re-appellant had filed a lawsuit for the purpose of preserving the property of an absentee for eight years prior to the fact that he did not recognize, that fact or the re-appellant cultivated the real estate owned by an absentee, and that there was a relationship between the absentee and the 8 degree of relationship, so any right of interest for the property of an absentee exists, or that the person must be appointed as an administrator, and that person cannot be dismissed, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro