A person with parental authority shall, without the consent of family council, take effect of disposing of properties of a person other than his child.

Even if a person with parental authority is not a person with parental authority, it is recognized that only the status equivalent to the guardian is recognized in a relationship with the person, and thus, in disposing of the property of the person with parental authority, the consent of family council is required and the act of disposing the property may be cancelled by the family council or

Article 950 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and four others

Busan District Court (82 Gohap3104)

Each appeal against the plaintiff et al. against the defendant is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

(A) Defendant 1: (a) On February 26, 1981, receipt No. 11702 of receipt on February 25, 1981, Defendant 2: (b) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, receipt on February 4, 1980, receipt No. 48392 of receipt on July 4, 1980; (c) on the registration of transfer of all co-owners on June 24, 1980; (d) on the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, receipt on January 3262 of receipt on January 20, 1982; (d) on the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 16, 1982; and (d) on the registration of transfer of co-ownership on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4, receipt of the Plaintiff’s co-ownership share on July 16, 1984.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as an unlawful lawsuit because non-party 1, a special representative of the plaintiffs, filed a suit on behalf of the plaintiffs without the consent of the family council. Thus, according to the records of evidence No. 9 (Special Representative Adjudication Form) without dispute over the establishment of the Gidae-dae-ro, it can be recognized that non-party 1 was appointed as a special representative to bring the lawsuit of this case by the Busan District Court Decision No. 81274 and No. 1275 on October 7, 1981. Thus, the special representative does not require the consent of the family council separately when filing a lawsuit and maintaining the lawsuit in accordance with the decision of appointment of the court. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is groundless.

2. Judgment on the merits

The real estate recorded in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 was originally owned by the deceased non-party 2, but he was deceased on December 15, 1978, and was recorded in the separate sheet Nos. 3, the senior non-party 4, the senior non-party 6, the defendant 8, 9, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the married non-party 10, 11, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 12, and 13 jointly inherited the real estate. The plaintiffs were registered as born between the above deceased and the non-party 3 on the family register, but the plaintiffs were actually born between the above deceased and the non-party 1, the special agent of this case, and the non-party 3, the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff's representative, were recorded in the separate sheet No. 3 on June 24, 198 with other co-inheritors who are minors, and the defendant 4, the title of the real estate was again recorded in the separate sheet No. 3 in the name of the above defendant 3's. 15.

The plaintiffs were sold to the above deceased and the non-party 5, who was the birth of the plaintiff between the above deceased and the non-party 1, who was the birth of the plaintiff in the above list Nos. 1 through 4, and sold the above forest land 45,223 1,000 square meters of 1,000,000,000, and sold the above forest land to the non-party 65,000 square meters of 2,000,000,000. Thus, the above sale of the plaintiffs' co-owned shares constitutes an act in conflict of interests between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, without appointing a special representative, the non-party 3 asserted that the sale of the real estate on behalf of the plaintiffs is null and void as an unauthorized representative act. Thus, the result of the non-party 1's examination at the court below and the court of the court below, the non-party 3's special representative examination at the above inheritance real estate alone is insufficient to conclude that the other land was sold to the non-party 9.

However, as seen above, although the non-party 3 was the person with parental authority at the time of disposing of the above inherited property, the non-party 3's act was not the person with parental authority, but the non-party 3's statement No. 4-9 (each notification) and the testimony of the non-party 3 without dispute, comprehensively taking into account the facts that the non-party 3 did not obtain the consent of family council in selling the above land's co-ownership on behalf of the plaintiffs, and that the defendant 1, 2, and 4, who was the party to the above sale, notified the non-party 3 of his intention to revoke the plaintiffs' right to dispose of the above real estate without the consent of family council, and it can be acknowledged that the non-party 1's act of selling the above real estate was not the person with parental authority at the time of the above disposal of the real estate by the non-party 3 (the non-party 3's act of selling the above real estate to the non-party 1's agent's own opinion and it can be acknowledged that the defendant 2's act of sale.

Therefore, in the case of this case where there is no assertion or proof as to the invalidity of the above registration in the name of the defendant, etc., each of the plaintiffs' claims in this case seeking the implementation of the procedure for the cancellation registration of each of the above registrations shall be dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just in this conclusion, and each of the appeals by the plaintiffs shall be dismissed without merit, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by

Judges Jeong Man-man (Presiding Judge)