The case dismissing a claim for removal of a guardian based on the premise that the above person is a statutory guardian on the ground that it cannot be readily determined that the person, who is not a statutory guardian, reported the commencement of guardianship and acted as if the person were a statutory guardian.

Article 935 and Article 932 of the Civil Act stipulate that, in cases where there are two or more collateral blood relatives who are recently married to minors, the oldest person shall be a guardian, and as long as the intervenor is alive than the intervenor, the intervenor cannot be readily determined as qualified solely on the ground that the intervenor was acting as a legal guardian in the principal of the case until now, and thus the intervenor dismissed the claim for removal of a guardian based on the premise that the intervenor is

[1] Articles 932 and 935 of the Civil Code

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 90S3 decided April 4, 1991 (Gong1991, 1383)

Claimant 1 and four others (Attorneys Song Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the appellant)

Principal of the case

An intervenor;

The appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed.

The intervenor (340121- omitted) of the principal of the case shall be dismissed.

1. Review of the records of this case reveals the following facts.

A. On October 8, 1995, the non-claim 1 (the father, April 21, 1946), who is a minor, died on October 8, 1995, and the non-claim 2 (the mother, the non-claim 49104-- omitted) died on March 16, 201. The Intervenor reported that the guardianship of the principal of this case was commenced on March 31, 2001, and reported that the guardianship was registered on the family register of the principal of this case, and thereafter the Intervenor acted as the legal guardian for the principal of this case.

B.However, between the deceased and the deceased and the plaintiff 3 (the birth on October 5, 1889) given birth to the plaintiff 5 (280318- omitted), the intervenor and the plaintiff 1, etc., the plaintiff 3 died on August 2, 1969, the plaintiff 4 died on July 25, 200, and the plaintiff 5's domicile on December 24, 2001 as of December 24, 2001.

C.On the other hand, the Claimant et al., the Claimant et al., the Claimant et al., the son et al., died on September 25, 1974, and the son et al., the son et al. (the son et al. of June 29, 191) died on June 26, 1978.

2. Determination:

Articles 935 and 932 of the Civil Act stipulate that, in cases where there are two or more collateral blood relatives, the oldest person shall be a guardian in the case of a minor, and as long as the intervenor is alive other than the claimant who is the oldest person than the intervenor, it is difficult to conclude that the intervenor is qualified for the intervenor solely on the ground that the intervenor was acting as a legal guardian of the principal of the case until now. Therefore, the claimant’s claim of this case premised on the premise that the intervenor is a legal guardian of the principal of the case, is dismissed without any further need to

Judges Kim Jong-chul