[1] The elements for establishing office management

[2] In a case where a creditor files an application for joint inheritance registration on an inherited real estate jointly with another inheritor in order to preserve his/her claim, whether the creditor may claim reimbursement of expenses incurred in the registration against a third party who is not the debtor (affirmative in principle)

[1] In order to establish a business management, it is required that the business is another person’s business and the intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of the management, i.e., the intention to vest in the other person. Furthermore, it is not clear that the handling of such business is disadvantageous to the principal or against the principal’s will. Here, “Proceedings to deal with the business for another person” can be in conflict with the intent of the manager for his/her own benefit, and it does not necessarily need to be externally indicated,

[2] In a case where a debtor succeeds to a real estate jointly with another inheritor, it is not allowed to make a registration of inheritance only with respect to the inheritance shares of the debtor, and an application for the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance is filed against all co-inheritors (see Article 52 subparagraph 7 of the Regulations on the Registration of Real Estate; Article 4-274 of the Decree on the Registration of Subrogation Inheritance, Nov. 5, 1994). In a case where the creditor applies for a joint inheritance registration on the real estate jointly inherited with another inheritor for the above joint inheritance and the creditor maintains and maintains the legal status of a third party as the registration is completed in order to preserve his/her own claim, the creditor may claim reimbursement of expenses incurred in the registration based on the management of affairs, barring any special circumstance where the creditor is not the debtor, and the creditor exercises the debtor's right to preserve his/her claim as provided by Article 404 (1) of the Civil Act on the subrogation right of the creditor, which is the sole reason that the creditor's right to claim the above joint heir's interest can be denied.

[1] Article 734 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 404(1) and 734 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Da25124 Decided June 10, 2010

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Hong Jin-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Yang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na37151 Decided March 20, 2013

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff asserted the right to claim reimbursement of expenses or the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment based on the management of affairs as the cause of the claim, and claimed reimbursement of expenses for the inheritance registration of this case against the Defendants, and the lower court rejected all of the above claims on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Therefore, the lower court did not err by omitting judgment

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. To establish the administration of affairs, first of all, a person’s business is another person’s business, and there must be an intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of management, i.e., the intention to vest in another person. Furthermore, it is not clear that the handling of such business is disadvantageous to the person himself/herself or is contrary to his/her will. Here, “Proceedings to deal with affairs for another person” can be jointly and severally against the person’s own interest, and there is no need to externally indicate it, and at the time of managing the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da25124, Jun. 10, 2010

Meanwhile, in cases where a debtor succeeds to a real estate jointly with another inheritor, it is not allowed to make a registration of inheritance only with respect to the inheritance shares of the debtor, and an application for the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance to all co-inheritors (see Article 52 subparagraph 7 of the Regulations on the Registration of Real Estate, Article 52 subparagraph 7 of the Decree on the Registration of Subrogation Inheritance, and Article 4-274 of the Act on the Registration of Subrogation Inheritance, which is held on November 5, 1994). In cases where a creditor applies for the registration of joint inheritance with another inheritor to preserve his/her claim and where the direct contents of the creditor's vicarious exercise of the creditor's right are to preserve and maintain a third party's legal status as the registration was made by the debtor's application for the registration of joint inheritance with respect to the real estate jointly inherited with another inheritor, the creditor may claim reimbursement of expenses incurred in the registration pursuant to the management of affairs to a third party, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the creditor's exercise of the debtor's right to subrogation right alone is a general circumstance that does not belong to the creditor's common benefit of denial.

B. After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of reimbursement of expenses arising from the Plaintiff’s office management on behalf of the Defendants, without any obligation, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s registration of inheritance on the instant real estate by subrogation of Nonparty 1, one of the deceased Nonparty 2’s co-inheritors, cannot complete the inheritance registration only on the part of the co-inheritors’s inheritance shares, and on the ground that the registration of inheritance cannot be completed on the part of the co-inheritors’s statutory shares in inheritance cannot be deemed to have managed the affairs

C. However, the above judgment of the court below is not acceptable.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even though the Plaintiff had no choice but to complete the registration of inheritance on the whole of co-inheritors in subrogation of Nonparty 1 for the execution of Nonparty 1’s inheritance shares, at the time of the registration of inheritance in this case, the Plaintiff paid registration expenses and completed the registration of inheritance to the Plaintiff, thereby obtaining the registration equivalent to his statutory share in inheritance, that is, the intention to vest the benefits arising from the Plaintiff’s business in the co-inheritors as they are, that is, the purport to vest in the co-inheritors. In addition, such intent can be jointly and severally agreed with the intent to obtain the satisfaction of his claim through the execution of Nonparty 1’s inheritance shares, i.e.,, the Plaintiff’s intent to seek such benefits, and the circumstance that the Plaintiff intended to seek such benefits does not interfere with recognizing “the intention to handle affairs on behalf of another person”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of expenses due to the management of affairs is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for establishment of management of affairs, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part concerning the Defendants among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)