(a) Where only ownership transfer registration is made without delivering the donated real estate, whether the execution of the donation contract is terminated (affirmative);

B. Whether the act of donation to a person with parental authority who is a legal representative or not constitutes a conflict of interest (negative)

(c) An act that a person with parental authority who is a legal representative donates real estate owned by the legal representative to another person is an abuse of parental authority.

(a) In the case of a gift of real estate, the donee shall acquire the ownership of the real estate upon completion of the procedures for registration of ownership transfer even if such real estate is not to be delivered;

B. Since the purchase of real estate by a person with parental authority, who is a legal representative, and the donation thereof to the person, only gives a minor profit, it does not belong to the interest conflict between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, but also

C. At the time when a person with parental authority, who is a legal representative, donates this real estate owned by the plaintiff (a minor), to the defendant as the legal representative, the plaintiff had been in the age of majority after the lapse of May, 19, and the plaintiff strongly opposed the above disposal act, and the above disposal act is not for the plaintiff, but for the defendant as the defendant as the legal representative, and the plaintiff was not paid any payment due to the above disposal act. Thus, the act of donation of this real estate to the defendant by the person with parental authority, who is the legal representative of the plaintiff, is not for the plaintiff, but for the defendant as the legal representative of the plaintiff, the act of donation to the defendant does not fall under the so-called "the act of abuse of parental authority"

(a) Articles 186, 558(b) and 921, 124(c) of the Civil Act;

Supreme Court Decision 77Da834 Delivered on February 10, 1976

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na487 delivered on February 23, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the court below's determination cannot be justified in the selection of evidence which was completed in the process of recognizing the fact that the non-party net purchased the property in this case for the plaintiff and the non-party's future life, and donated it to the plaintiff for the future of the plaintiff and the non-party's mother, and each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and it cannot be accepted that the court below discussed the matters belonging to the whole authority of the court below, which is not a gift referring to the fact of the above recognition but a title trust

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

As a matter of course, the interpretation of the Korean Civil Act takes the form of legal principle as to the change of real rights. Since the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership is terminated and the donee acquires ownership as a conclusive legal principle, the argument that the gift has yet to be performed before transferring the real estate for its original purpose is merely an independent opinion and it cannot be adopted (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da2295 delivered on February 10, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 77Da834 delivered on December 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 921 delivered on December 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 921 delivered on the ground that the act of this case restricts the legal representative's exercise of parental rights as to the so-called act of this case cannot be viewed as a legitimate interpretation of the legal principle as to the act of this case's act of this case's act of conflict of interest between the minor and the minor's own or the minor's other person's exercise of parental rights as to the minor's exercise of parental rights.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the act of the plaintiff's legal representative of the plaintiff's act of donation of the real estate of this case to the defendant is not an abuse of parental authority. The court below is just in holding that even if the defendant had already reached the theory of lawsuit, it does not fall under the abuse of parental authority. Although the abuse of parental authority had already been affected, the plaintiff's act was strongly opposed to the above act of disposal, and the above act of disposal was not for the plaintiff, but for the defendant as a major child of the non-party deceased, and the plaintiff did not receive any comments. Thus, under the above circumstances, the act of donation of the real estate of this case to the defendant as the legal representative of the non-party deceased is an abuse of parental authority. Thus, the court below's decision that the act of abuse of parental authority is not an abuse of parental authority, and there is no ground for appeal as to this point.

4. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)