Whether the administrator of an absentee can conduct an act of disposal without permission of the court

No administrator of an absentee may, without permission of the court, cancel a lease belonging to an act of disposal.

Article 28 of the former Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court (4286No795) of the first instance court

This case is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The defendant et al.'s attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's lawsuit costs are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second trials, and the plaintiff's attorney is seeking a judgment in the Dong area of Paragraph 1 of the Disposition.

The method of proof of actual statement by both parties to the plaintiff's legal representative was designated as an administrator of non-party 1, even if the defendant 2 was appointed to the plaintiff's legal representative, the cancellation of the lease contract is an act of disposal, and thus, the court's without permission cannot cancel the lease contract of this case between the plaintiff and non-party 1. Even if the lease contract is terminated for three months after the cancellation notification of the lease contract. Even if it is inevitable, since the lease contract is terminated for three months after the expiration of the period, the plaintiff's right to request the name is not allowed before the expiration of the period, Eul's evidence No. 4 and 5 was acknowledged, and the above evidence No. 6 was confirmed as the site. In the defendant's legal representative, the defendant 2 was selected as an administrator of non-party 1, who is the owner of the house, by the decision of the Seoul District Court on May 8, 4287, and the defendant made a statement of cancellation of the lease contract of this case between the plaintiff and the non-party 1.

The facts that the defendant et al. occupied and used the separate drawing indication part among the houses owned by the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, which are the non-party 2, since the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the witness testimony of the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 were leased the above house from September 10, 4281 to the non-party 1, the non-party 300,000 won, and the defendant et al. occupied the house at the end of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the plaintiff's right to use the house.

In addition, since the customs of the defendant et al. in Seoul is 100 days for the period of the lease contract of the house, the lease contract of the plaintiff's assertion was terminated since 5 years or more since the conclusion of the lease contract of the house was made, but there is no evidence to prove the existence of such custom, and even if there is no evidence to prove that the party had an intention to do so according to such custom, this defense is groundless.

In light of the above reasons, since the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit is well-grounded, the original judgment recognized by the court below is just and there is no reason to prosecute the principal case of the defendant, etc., so it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 89 and 95 of the

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)