Whether a woman who is de facto remarried is a person with parental authority over a minor born between the whole woman and the minor.

Even if a minor's biological mother was actually remarried, so long as he is in the same family register as the plaintiff, the plaintiff has no director in charge of parental authority.

Article 909 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

may 31, 1971

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 69Da13618 delivered on March 31, 1970

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. Defendant 1: (a) on March 21, 1969, received by the Seoul District Court on March 21, 1969, the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale at the 20th of the same month; (b)

The defendant 2 Bank will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration for the plaintiff on April 16, 1970 by the same court No. 7528 of the same court's receipt of the above real estate and July 27 of the same year.

3. The remainder of the plaintiff's claim (the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of registration of creation of a collateral security, and claim No. 2) is dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. Defendant 1: (a) on March 21, 1969, received by the Seoul District Court on March 21, 1969, the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale at the 20th of the same month; (b)

The Bank of Korea shall, upon receipt of the same court on February 10, 1969 with respect to the above real estate, register cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security at KRW 3,200,000, pursuant to the contract establishing the right to collateral security on July 1, 1969, with regard to the Plaintiff:

B. On March 21, 1969, No. 5638 of the same court’s receipt of the same date, Defendant 2: (a) the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,600,000 for the same day; and

㉣ 피고 2 은행은 원고에게 위 부동산에 관한 1970.4.16. 같은 법원 접수 제7528호로 동년 2. 27.자 동 법원 경락허가 결정을 원인으로 한 소유권 이전등기의 말소등기 절차를

D. Each performance shall be made.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc. in the first and second instances.

The public document No. 7-1, No. 7-2 (each certified copy of the family register), No. 10 (each certified copy of the family register), No. 1-2, No. 5 (written consent to provide security), No. 2 (written consent to provide security), No. 7 of the same public document No. 3, No. 8 (each certified copy of the family register), and No. 6 (application for registration of transfer) shall be proved by taking into account the following facts in the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 of the party-trial 1 and Non-Party 2, respectively, and there is no counter-proof.

The real estate stated in the Schedule (hereinafter this real estate) was owned by the Plaintiff;

㉯ 본건 부동산에 관하여 청구취지 제2항의 ㉡과 같이 피고 2 은행이 근저당권 설정등기를 한 후 청구취지 제2항의 ㉠과 같이 피고 1에 소유권 이전등기가 되었고 그 후 주문 제2항의 ㉢과 같이 피고 2 은행이 다시 근저당권 설정등기를 하고, 그 후 피고 2 은행은 위 2개의 근저당권에 기하여 본건 부동산에 대한 경매신청을 한 후 피고 2 은행이 경락받아 주문 제2항의 ㉣과 같이 경락허가 결정에 의한 소유권 이전등기를 마쳐 청구취지 2항의 ㉡ ㉢의 피고 2 은행의 근저당권 설정등기는 직권 말소된 사실,

In the case of the Plaintiff who was born on May 16, 1949, registered the establishment of the right to collateral security stated in the provisions of paragraph (2) of the purport of the claim, and registered the establishment of the right to collateral security as stated in paragraph (2) of the main text of paragraph (2), the Plaintiff was a minor who was under 20 years of age, and accordingly, the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security and the registration of the transfer was based on the parental authority;

In fact, Nonparty 1 was married to Nonparty 2 and was living together with Nonparty 2, and the Nonparty provided this real estate as collateral and decided to operate a bath and inn, and requested Defendant 1 to operate the bath and inn, and entrusted Defendant 1 with the registration rights to this real estate, certificates of seal impression, power of attorney, and seals of Nonparty 1. As stated in the judgment of the Republic of Korea, the above Defendant, as stated in paragraph 2 of the purport of this claim, had Defendant 2 bank registered the establishment of the right to collateral security and arbitrarily registered the transfer to Defendant 2 bank as stated in the judgment of the Republic of Korea, and had Defendant 2 bank registered the establishment of the right to collateral security at will and had Defendant 2 bank again registered the establishment of the right to collateral security as stated in the judgment of the Republic of Korea. However, the Nonparty was missing without paying all

2. On December 25, 1968, Nonparty 1, a person with parental authority of the Plaintiff, was actually re-born and living together with Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1, a person with parental authority of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Nonparty asserted that the legal act of Nonparty 1, a person who was unable to be a person with parental authority of the Plaintiff under the provisions of Article 909(5) of the Civil Act, as if he had parental authority, is null and void (the re-offender as referred to in the same provision refers to a de facto re-re-re-explation, not a de facto re-explination), but the fact that Nonparty 1 is still in the same family register as the Plaintiff,

(B) In other words, the Plaintiff’s attorney asserted that Nonparty 1’s above legal act is contrary to the interests of the Plaintiff, who is the subject of parental authority, and thus null and void pursuant to Article 921(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, Nonparty 1, a person with parental authority, who is himself, and Nonparty 2, as his person with parental authority, engaged in a bath and inn business (registration of transfer and establishment of mortgage) to operate the Plaintiff’s bath and inn business, is deemed to be an act contrary to the interests of the Plaintiff, who is the subject of parental authority, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable.

그렇다면 청구취지 2항 ㉡의 근저당권 설정등기는 원인무효로서 말소되어야 할 것이고 동 제2항 ㉠의 피고 1 명의의 이전등기 역시 원인무효로서 말소되어야 할 것이며 위 원인무효의 이전등기 후에 한 주문 제2항 ㉢의 근저당권 설정등기 역시 무효라고 할 것이고 위 무효의 근저당권 설정등기인 청구취지 제2항 ㉡ 및 ㉢의 근저당권 설정등기에 기하여 경락받아 소유권 이전등기를 한 청구취지 제2항의 ㉣등기 역시 원인무효의 근저당권에 기한 것으로서 말소되어야 할 것이므로 원고의 이 사건 청구 중 주문 제2항과 같이 피고 1 명의의 소유권 이전등기와 피고 2 은행 명의의 소유권 이전등기의 말소등기 절차의 이행을 구하는 원고의 청구는 원고의 나머지 주장에 대하여 판단 할 필요 없이 그 이유 있어 이를 인용하여야 할 것이다.

3. As to the part of the plaintiff's claim claim No. 2, which sought cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security, the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security was already cancelled ex officio as seen above. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is a claim with no benefit of lawsuit. Thus, it should be dismissed.

4. Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for judgment of the same judgment as the Disposition No. 2 in the plaintiff's main claim is justified, and the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the ground of different conclusions is improper, the original judgment which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as an illegal claim, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 92, and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Yekpo-syun (Presiding Judge)