Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Cho & Lee, Attorneys Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Love, Attorneys Lee Byung-hun et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Defendant

June 11, 2010

1. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 32843 on August 20, 2009 with respect to one half of the two-half of each share among the 1950 square meters in the Sung-ri-ri, Sung-ri, Sung-si, the Sung-si, the Sungsung District Court of Suwon-si, the Defendant, as to the Plaintiffs.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 7, 191, the intervenor joining the defendant (the non-party to the judgment of the Supreme Court, hereinafter "the intervenor") married with the non-party 4 and gave birth to the plaintiffs on April 17, 1998, and thereafter the agreement was married with the non-party 4 on April 17, 1998. On April 9, 2002, the intervenor and the non-party 2 gave birth to the non-party 2.

B. The Intervenor and Nonparty 4, while divorced, designated Nonparty 4 as the exerciseer and guardian of parental authority over the Plaintiffs, and Nonparty 4 raised the Plaintiffs. On May 15, 2007, Nonparty 4 died due to an accident.

C. Nonparty 4 entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on August 14, 2009 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On August 20, 2009, the Intervenor, as a person with parental authority, registered the inheritance of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 28, 2009, the Intervenor entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell it to KRW 100,300,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) as described in the Disposition No. 1 in the Defendant’s name on August 20, 209.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1-2 through 4, Gap evidence 3-5 (including those with serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the sales contract of this case between the intervenor and the defendant with respect to the land of this case constitutes an act of conflict of interest or abuse of parental authority between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, and thus null and void as the act of conflict of interest was conducted without the appointment of a special representative, or the defendant knew or could have known the circumstances of abuse of parental authority

B. However, considering the objective nature of the act in conflict of interest under Article 921 of the Civil Code, it refers to an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between a person with parental authority and his/her own person in view of its objective nature, and whether there is a conflict of interest as a result of a person with parental authority's intent or its act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da6680, Sept. 9, 194). Thus, the sales contract of this case where the intervenor, who is a person with parental authority, sells the land of this case to the defendant by the plaintiffs, does not constitute an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between a person with parental authority and his/her own person. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the sales

C. On the other hand, even if the act does not constitute the above act of conflicting interest, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of representation as a legal representative is an abuse of the power of attorney only for the benefit of a person with parental authority or a third party, who is a legal representative, disregards the interest of the child himself/herself, and the other party to the act also knew or could have known such an act of breach of trust, it does not extend

D. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 13-6, 7, 9, and 10 of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, and 13-10, the intervenor, after the divorce with the non-party Nos. 4, brought up a child with the non-party Nos. 2 and the non-party Nos. 3 and 10, and the plaintiff was born several times for more than 10 years. In particular, after the death of the non-party Nos. 4, the non-party Nos. 4 issued a written waiver of parental authority to the non-party Nos. 6, who was the mother of the non-party No. 4, and there were no cost of living, and the plaintiff was faced with economic difficulties, such as forced execution of property due to the non-party No. 2's business depression. After the death of the non-party No. 4, the intervenor's selling of the land of this case and the plaintiff's selling price of the land of this case to the non-party No.

E. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant, the other party to the contract of this case, was aware of such a breach of trust, and that the defendant had concluded the contract of this case with the intervenor to acquire the low price of the land of this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant knew of such circumstances at the time of the contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

바. 그러나 한편 피고는, ‘원고들의 망부 소외 4와 피고는 같은 고향 사람으로 소외 4가 20세 정도가 될 때까지는 이웃에서 살았고, 지금도 소외 4의 모친과 피고의 모친은 고향에서 한 집 건너에 살고 있다’, ‘ 소외 4가 이혼한 것은 모르고 소외 4의 처가 행실이 안 좋아서 들락거린다는 정도를 소문으로 알고 있었다’, ‘이 사건 매매계약서를 법무사 사무실에서 작성하여 그 사무장만 믿고 토지등기부등본이나 계약서의 내용을 살펴보지 않아 계약서 작성 당시에는 매도인이 소외 4의 자식들인 것을 몰랐는데, 계약 체결 후에 계약서를 자세히 들여다 보니 매도인이 모두 “정”씨에 미성년자인 원고들이고 그 주소가 시흥이며 “법정대리인 모 피고 보조참가인”이라고 기재되어 있는데다 사망한 소외 4의 자녀를 시흥의 고모가 돌봐준다는 얘기를 들었던 기억이 어렴풋이 나 이상한 생각이 들어 며칠 후 소외 4의 형제에게 연락하여 사건의 경위를 이야기해 주었다’, ‘만약 이 사건 토지 매도인이 소외 4의 자식들이고, 그들이 미성년자여서 그 모친이 법정대리인으로서 매도를 하는 것이며, 그 모친은 일찌기 소외 4와 이혼하고 다른 남자와 혼인해서 살고 있다는 사정을 알고 있었다면, 피고가 그런 땅을 샀을리 만무하다. 그렇기 때문에 사후에 이를 알게 되자 바로 소외 4의 형제에게 연락하여 거래의 전말을 알려주었던 것이다’라고 하고 있는바, 여기서 알 수 있는 이 사건 토지의 구입 경위 및 소외 4와 피고의 관계 등에 비추어 보면, 만약 피고가 이 사건 매매계약 체결 당시 정상적으로 토지등기부등본이나 매매계약서를 살펴보고 토지소유자와 매도인에 대해서 주의를 기울여 보았다면, 소외 4와 이혼 후 다른 남자와 혼인해 살고 있는 참가인이 원고들 몰래 원고들의 이익에 반하여 이 사건 토지를 매각하려 한다는 배임적인 사정을 어렵지 않게 알 수 있었을 것이라고 판단된다. 그렇다면, 이 사건 매매계약에서는 법정대리인인 친권자가 대리권을 남용하는 사정을 거래의 상대방이 알 수 있었다고 할 것이므로, 그 매매의 효과가 본인인 원고들에게 미치지 않는다고 해석함이 상당하다.

G. Therefore, the instant sales contract concluded between the intervenor and the defendant in relation to the plaintiffs is null and void. Since the ownership transfer registration of this case completed accordingly is also null and void, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case to the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted.

Judges Park Jong-soo