Disposal and expression agent of the minor's property in his/her possession, whose legal representative has obtained a minor's right certificate and seal impression, by a legal representative;

In cases where the legal representative, who is the father of a minor, delegates the management of property to his/her wife, even though he/she did not grant his/her right to dispose of property, if he/she has left the seal and the certificate of right of real estate owned by the minor to him/her and has been separated from his/her wife for a period of three years, the other party is a subagent of a minor on behalf of his/her husband who is a legal representative, and there is a justifiable reason to believe

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1051 Decided August 30, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 173Da173, Supreme Court Decision 16Nu civil97 Decided the summary of the decision and Article 126(48)252 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Bank of Korea

Seoul Central District Court (66A7463) of the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 66Da7463)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's legal representative will primarily implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale on July 5, 1965, which was the receipt of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court's Yeongdeungpo-gu District Court's receipt of the registration office on July 8, 1965, for the plaintiff's real estate stated in the attached list.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant will implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer due to termination of the trust made on July 24, 1965 or due to termination of the trust made on December 3, 1969.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney is seeking the same judgment as the disposition.

(1) The fact that the real estate recorded in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as this case's real estate) was originally owned by the plaintiff, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made from the plaintiff to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as this case's registration is abbreviationd) on the ground of sale on July 8, 1965 by the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court's Youngpo District Court's receipt of registration office No. 16935, Jul. 8, 1965, is without dispute between the

(2) The plaintiff asserted as the primary cause of claim is a minor, and his legal representative is the plaintiff's father, who is the defendant's father, and the registration of this case concerning the real estate in this case which was held in the future of the defendant is made by the non-party 2, the mother of the plaintiff, who is the plaintiff's mother, to obtain a bank loan as security if he was unable to take over the registration of transfer in his front, i.e., the transfer, and thereafter, will return the registration again, and the right certificate stored in the plaintiff's house and the seal impression of the non-party 1 who is the plaintiff's principal without the authority to do so. Thus, the registration of invalidity of cause is cancelled,

(3) No. 1.2 of the above certificate of registration of ownership transfer issued by the non-party 4 and the non-party 1,2, and 8-2 of the above certificate of registration of ownership transfer issued by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the above certificate of registration of ownership transfer issued by the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 of the above certificate of registration of ownership transfer issued by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the above certificate of registration of ownership transfer issued by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the above certificate of registration of the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 of the above certificate of registration of ownership transfer issued by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the above certificate of registration of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the defendant's legal representative had no dispute over the establishment of the above certificate of registration of ownership transfer issued by the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this judgment.

(4) If so, Nonparty 1, his legal representative, delegated the management of the property of this case to Nonparty 2, at least within the scope of his property management, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff granted the Plaintiff’s right of attorney to Nonparty 2. Therefore, even if the right of disposition was not granted, the Defendant does not constitute a case where there is any justifiable reason to believe that Nonparty 2 was entitled to dispose of the property of this case as a sub-agent on behalf of the Plaintiff’s legal representative on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff should be liable for the said legal act on the part of the Plaintiff’s husband. Accordingly, the registration of this case made before the Defendant is valid (for this reason, the Defendant’s legal representative defense as to the above purport is reasonable).

(5) The plaintiff asserted that the market price of the real estate in this case was 45 million won at the market price around July 1965. The defendant's act of disposal of the real estate in this case committed to the defendant by the expression representative to the defendant is legitimate, and the defendant's act of disposal of the real estate in this case cannot be deemed to be an unfair juristic act, and it is invalid that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer without any justifiable payment to the plaintiff who is a minor. However, according to the result of appraisal at the market price of the real estate in this case at the trial after remanding the above facts, it can be recognized that the market price of the real estate in this case at the trial around July 1965 was equivalent to 1,523,00 won.

(6) If, as a preliminary claim, the disposal action against the Defendant on the instant real estate is valid as a trust transfer, the purpose of the trust was achieved on July 24, 1965, because the Industrial Bank of Korea established the right to collateral security in the amount of five million won for the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 on January 7, 1966 and voluntarily expressed the intent to terminate the trust as of December 3, 1969, and thus, the Plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer. However, in light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s expression agent’s request for the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate by the non-party 2 to the Defendant cannot be deemed as a trust transfer, and otherwise there is no evidence to acknowledge that the disposal action was a trust transfer by the evidence at the time of the Plaintiff, and there is no reason to request the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration

(7) In the same way, the Plaintiff’s principal claim and ancillary claim premised on the premise that the registration of this case is null and void are all without merit, and thus, the original judgment, contrary to this conclusion, shall be revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s appeal is justifiable, and therefore, is justified

The burden of litigation costs shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Salky's (Presiding Judge) No. 54