The consent of family council where a guardian conducts litigation on behalf of the ward;

Since the guardian obtains the consent of family council in conducting procedural acts in lieu of the ward, if the above consent is not obtained, he does not have the litigation capacity.

Article 950 of the Civil Act

Yu Chang-sho et al.

Park Jong-bok (Attorney Lee Ho-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 4294No439 delivered on October 18, 1961

The appeal against the plaintiff LLC and the limited liability company shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal for the above two plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendant.

We reverse the winning part of the original judgment of the plaintiff, the representative, and the limited liability.

The case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as stated in the appellate brief attached in attached Form.

Judgment on the Grounds of Appeal

No. 1. Nonparty 1 was the mother of the Defendants, and the fact that Nonparty 1 was the mother of the Defendants is apparent by the entry of No. 1 and 2, and it is clear that the miscarriage due to the death of the mother, who was a family, is jointly inherited by lineal descendants before the enforcement of the new Civil Code. Therefore, it is without

The second instance court did not err in recognizing that the plaintiffs jointly inherited property damages due to the loss of future property profits to be acquired due to the death of stuff, and there is no illegality in recognizing that the plaintiffs shared inheritance.

The court below Nos. 3 and 4 found that this case was completed and delivered to the defendant, and the defendant was delivered, and there was no error such as the theory of lawsuit on the average rate of survival of the deceased boom, as well as the purport that this case was caused by evidence, and there was no error such as the theory of lawsuit.

We examine ex officio the original judgment and consider it.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, since the court below erred in failing to examine the existence of litigation capacity in the original judgment, since it is not possible to reverse the part in favor of the defendant, the limited liability, and the limited liability, from this point of view, since it is clear that the plaintiff's representative is a minor, and the defendant's LLC and the limited liability is a guardian, and even if his LLC and the defendant's LLC were appointed as a guardian based on the record, it is possible to see the record that the facts of this case's litigation can be clarified by the records, the court below's decision is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on the ground that the court below's decision is erroneous in failing to examine the existence of litigation capacity, and since the part in favor of the defendant, the limited liability, and the limited liability, shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial, and the appeal against the defendant's LLC and the limited liability

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags