(a) If it is impossible for the enemy to exercise the right of legal representation due to a conflict of interest between the enemy and the child, whether to appoint a special representative;

(b) Where a person with parental authority may designate members of family council for minors;

(a) A special representative may be appointed under Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Act, when the enemy and the child are unable to exercise their right of legal representation due to the conflict of interests between the enemy and the child in substance;

(b) Where a person of parental authority may designate members of family council for a minor, it refers to when the person of parental authority is permitted to designate a guardian and when the person of parental authority is permitted to designate a guardian, it refers to the case where a guardian is designated by will;

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Attorney Cho Jae-research, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Park Nam-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na791 delivered on October 25, 1974

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

In the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Nonparty 2, the mother of the plaintiffs' mother, upon the application of Nonparty 1, who is a minor, shall be deemed to fall under the case where the interests of the plaintiffs and this case are in fact superior to that of the plaintiffs, and it is impossible to exercise their right of legal representation. Thus, the defendant's safety defense against this issue is groundless as the court below's findings of fact that the defendant's legal representative was appointed as a special representative of the plaintiffs under Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the legal representative of this case was ratified and legally performed the litigation since this case's first instance court, and the legal representative of this case was appointed as the legal representative of this case, and the defendant's legal representative of this case's legal representative of this case's legal representative of this case's legal representative of this case's legal representative of this case's legal representative of this case's legal representative of this case's legal representative of non-party 2 shall be deemed to be legitimate or not to be legitimate in the records of this judgment.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

In the judgment of the court below that the non-party 2 cannot be seen as having the status to designate a family council member because he was the person with parental authority who can designate a guardian as the non-party as the mother of the plaintiffs, who did not have the same rights and duties as the guardian, the non-party 2 cannot be seen as having the status to designate a guardian. In this case, the "the person with parental authority who can designate a guardian" shall not be deemed to be "the person with parental authority who is entitled to designate a guardian" in light of before and after the notice, and it shall not be deemed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle that may not be designated as a relative member even if the guardian can designate a guardian. Thus, the above decision does not contain any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles, but it shall be deemed that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, the court below's rejection of the defendants' assertion that the act of disposal of the plaintiffs' shares against the non-party 2's act of disposal of the real estate in this case belongs to the scope of the legal representation right of the person with parental authority and the act of disposal of the non-party 2's act of disposal belongs to the expression representative of the authorized month. It is legitimate to compare the evidence preparation process and the contents of the fact-finding with the records, and it is not found that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the law of incomplete deliberation as argued in the arguments. There is no reason to argue that the court below's decision of the evidence preparation and the whole matters of the fact-finding are returned to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)