(a) The non-performance of monetary obligations and defenses of force majeure;

(b) An absentee administrator and a method of disposing of the property managed by him; and

A. The obligor cannot defend against the non-performance of a monetary obligation under Article 419 of the Civil Act with force majeure. The obligor cannot defend against the non-performance of a monetary obligation with absolute responsibilities, which would be an immediate delay of performance when there is no performance due to reduction of cash special action and extreme flexibility. It cannot be said that the obligor cannot defend against the non-performance of a monetary obligation.

B. In order for an absentee to sell an absentee's property, the permission of the court is required, and when the court grants the permission, the court may order the sale by auction method and may grant the authority to sell the property voluntarily without going through auction. Therefore, in case where the court grants the permission, the administrator may sell the property voluntarily.

Articles 419, 28, and 58 of the Civil Act

w. Attorney Choi Han-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, and the Seoul High Court of the second instance 54 civil defense522 delivered on July 2, 1955

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's first ground for appeal is that the non-party 1 was merely the non-party 2's main house name among the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's main house name, and the non-party 2's main house name is the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's counter-party 2's party 2's.

The author argues that the content of the written compromise theory can be interpreted as having a relation to the obligation to repay 6.2 million won for the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party

The ground of appeal No. 2 is that the original judgment is stipulated in Article 419 of the Civil Act that the obligor cannot defend with force majeure in regard to the non-performance of monetary obligation again, and even if the Defendant failed to deposit money pursuant to Article 494 of the Civil Act due to the relationship of June 25, 200, the deposit for repayment by Non-Party Jong Young-young after the lapse of that period is not effective due to the reason of exhibition. Therefore, although the next defense was stated as groundless, it is determined that the so-called Force Force Majeure in the latter part of Article 419(2) of the Civil Act is a rule on the compensation for the non-performance of monetary obligation, and it is not necessary to reconvene that it is not applicable to the performance of this case’s settlement contract. The interpretation of the original judgment does not require the conclusion of the judgment to be made by citing the Article 419(2) of the Civil Act, and it does not constitute a unilateral compromise between the parties to the settlement and the parties to the settlement.

However, under Article 419 of the Civil Code, an obligor cannot set up a defense with force majeure with respect to the non-performance of a monetary obligation, is a critical view that the obligor recognizes an absolute liability, which would be an immediate delay of performance upon the occurrence of the performance of the obligation, due to reduction of the special action and extreme flexibility of the cash, and that the force majeure cannot be set up with force majeure as a defense.

The third ground of appeal argues that the sale and purchase of this house between the administrator of an absentee newspaper and the plaintiff is null and void under Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Act because the judgment of the court below is not an auction under the Civil Procedure Act, but the court did not order the administrator of the absentee newspaper to sell this house to the administrator of the non-resident, and therefore, the court did not order the auction under the Auction Act when selling this house to the administrator of the non-resident. Thus, although the court stated that the defendant's second ground of appeal is groundless, the court ordered the sale of the non-resident property under Article 60 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Act when the court permits sale of the non-resident property, i.e., when the court permits sale of the non-resident property, the administrator is ordered to sell the house under the provisions of the Auction Act under Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Act, and even if the administrator excluded from the auction law among the orders of the court, the court below did not err by misapprehending the spirit of Article 518 of the Civil Procedure Act as well as the order of the court of auction.

However, in the event that an absentee did not appoint an administrator or an administrator appointed by the court terminates the authority due to the absence of the principal, the court may, upon the request of interested parties or the public prosecutor, order the administrator to take necessary measures, such as sealing the appointed property or selling the property by auction. An absentee administrator appointed by the court may, as a legal representative, sell and liquidate the property of the absentee within the scope prescribed in Article 103 of the Civil Act, such as conversion of the property into money, which could cause corruption. In order to sell the property of the absentee not belonging to the preservation act, the court's permission is required. In case where the court grants the permission, the administrator may sell the property in accordance with the Auction Act, and if the court grants the right to sell the property without any restriction on the method of sale, the administrator may sell the property without any restriction on the method of sale. In this case, according to the original judgment, it is reasonable to interpret that the new administrator of the non-resident newspaper, who is an absentee, obtained the permission from the court to sell the property to the plaintiff without any restriction on the method of sale from the non-party.

Therefore, since the appeal in this case is clearly groundless, it is recognized that it is reasonable to dismiss it, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)