(a) A case that does not constitute an act of conflicting interest under Article 921 of the Civil Act;

(b) Methods of revocation of renunciation of succession;

A. The act of conflict in interest under Article 921(1) and (2) of the Civil Act is a matter that occurs only between the person with parental authority and the minor, or between the minor and the minor. Thus, the case where the person with parental authority, the minor, and the adult are inherited by the heir of the common property, and only the adult is inherited by the person with parental authority and the minor, and the case where the person with parental authority and the minor

(b) The revocation of renunciation of succession shall take effect after reporting to the court which has reported the renunciation of succession; and

Articles 921 and 950(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed on August 30, 1986 by the party member on the portion of 4/26 out of the real estate listed in the attached list (2) of the attached list to the plaintiff as the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed on August 30, 1986 as the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed on the same date as the party member on the share of 26/4 out of the real estate listed in the same list (1), (5) as the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed on the same date as the registration office of Busan as the party member on the same date.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

With respect to the real estate indicated in the separate list (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), there is no dispute between the parties that the registration of initial ownership and the registration of transfer of ownership have been made under the name of the defendant, and the non-party 4-1-6 (No. 8-6, Gap evidence No. 11-5, and No. 12-4)-2 through 4 (each certified family register No. 8-6, Gap evidence No. 12-6, No. 12-3 and No. 4-3 of the above real estate of this case were registered under the name of the non-party 6, and the non-party 1-6 (the above evidence No. 8-7, No. 11-7, No. 9-1, No. 97)-2, the non-party 1-6 (the above fact that the non-party 6-party 9 was recorded under the name of the defendant, and the non-party 1-party 1-6 (the above evidence No. 1-6);

However, the plaintiff first asserted that the refusal of inheritance made by the non-party 3 as a legal representative of the plaintiff is null and void, but as seen earlier, the plaintiff's birth report was registered on his family register with the plaintiff born between the non-party 2, who is the deceased non-party 2 and the plaintiff, thereby becoming effective as being aware of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the legal father-child relationship between the non-party 3, who is the legal wife of the deceased non-party 2, and the father-child 3, who is the father-child, becomes the legal representative of the plaintiff, and therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Then, since the waiver of inheritance by the above non-party 3 as a legal representative falls under the act of conflict with the interest under Article 921 (1) and (2) of the Civil Code, the non-party 3 requested the court to appoint a special representative for the plaintiff and let the special representative waive the plaintiff's inheritance, although he did not appoint a special representative, he did not waive the plaintiff's inheritance. Thus, it is invalid. Thus, Article 921 (1) and (2) of the Civil Code provides that the legal representative must request the court to appoint a special representative for the plaintiff's legal representative, who is the legal representative, or who is a minor, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, and the non-party 6 and the non-party 7, who is a minor, should not give up the inheritance of the plaintiff and the non-party 3, who is a minor, and it also constitutes a waiver of the above legal representative's inheritance between the plaintiff and the non-party 3, who is a minor.

Finally, since the above non-party 3 exercised parental authority over the plaintiff who is not the plaintiff's birth, the plaintiff does not have the same authority as his guardian, it is necessary for the non-party 3 to waive inheritance on behalf of the plaintiff, and although the non-party 3 has to obtain consent from the family council, the plaintiff renounced the plaintiff's succession without the consent of the family council. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff would cancel the above refusal of inheritance by delivery of the complaint of this case. Thus, the provisions on guardian shall apply mutatis mutandis to the non-party 3's exercise of parental authority over the plaintiff who is not the plaintiff's birth, pursuant to Article 921 of the Civil Code, and since the non-party 3's renunciation of inheritance constitutes an act aimed at acquiring or losing the right to real estate under Article 950 (1) 3 of the Civil Code, it constitutes an act aimed at giving up the plaintiff's inheritance on behalf of the plaintiff, the non-party 3 should obtain the consent of the family council, and it cannot be revoked by the plaintiff's waiver of inheritance.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the waiver of succession is null and void or revoked is dismissed as without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Song Hong (Presiding Judge) Lee Chang-ok