beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s father, the father of the Plaintiff, owned 67.2 square meters of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Road, left North Korea due to the subdivision of the Republic of Korea. As a result, E, the mother of C, was appointed as a custodian of C on April 7, 1964.
B. On June 19, 1964, E received a decision to permit sale of the instant real estate from the Seoul Family Court (the Seoul Family Court 64B11) and sold the instant real estate to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 22, 1964.
C. The Seoul Family Court has a duty to manage and supervise E, an administrator, to fulfill his/her duty to manage and supervise property including reporting property status.
Nevertheless, the Seoul Family Court: (a) granted permission to dispose of the instant real estate at least two months from the time when E was appointed as an administrator; (b) held that E was not properly managed even with the management of the instant real estate; (c) appears to have failed to provide sufficient data or deliberation to the extent that such management status was determined; (d) the reason for permission to sell all the instant real estate, including the instant real estate, was not stated in a simple statement; (c) the reason for permission to sell the instant real estate was the purpose of education; (d) the property of C was not educated in light of the circumstances; (e) the decision to grant permission to sell the instant real estate entirely and comprehensively without any additional measure was made with respect to the property of C; and (v) the sale of the instant real estate without any additional measure constitutes an act of conflict with the absentee; and (v) the sale of the instant real estate without any additional measure was conducted without the appointment of a special agent and neglected to be disposed of by E without permission by violating the duty to supervise and supervise the administrator.
The above act of Seoul Family Court constitutes a tort against the plaintiffs, and the defendant is out of the value of the real estate of this case.