(a) The exercise of parental authority over a child born out of wedlock together with the natural mother;

B. Whether Article 921(2) of the Civil Act applies in cases where interests conflict between an adult and a minor (negative)

(c) Where the renunciation of inheritance is revoked, the other party to the revocation;

A. The case where the biological mother stipulated in Article 909(3) of the Civil Act becomes a person of parental authority refers to the case where there is no father or mother who exercises parental authority or his or her father or mother is unable to exercise parental authority, and even if the child born out of wedlock was living together with his or her mother and there was no visit from the mother, it cannot be deemed that the father or mother is unable to exercise parental authority.

B. In the case of Article 921(2) of the Civil Act, both parties to this act should be a minor who is subject to parental authority. In this case, since persons with parental authority cannot represent both of the minors, it is necessary to appoint a special representative for a minor, and even if there are cases where there is an interest conflict between a person who does not obey parental authority of a person with parental authority and a minor who is subject to parental authority, a person with parental authority may exercise its own rights as a legal representative for a minor, such legal act by a person with parental authority shall not be deemed to constitute an act of conflicting interest under the provisions of the same Article.

C. In a case where the enemy renounces the inheritance of the deceased on behalf of the deceased who is a minor, the other party to the revocation is deemed to be the court to which the declaration of renunciation of inheritance was accepted, for the reason that there was no consent from the family council.

(a) Article 909(3)(b) of the Civil Act; Article 921(2)(c) of the Civil Act;

Supreme Court Decision 75Da2340 Delivered on March 9, 1976

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Kim Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 88Na1394 delivered on September 30, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) Article 909(3) of the Civil Act provides that, if there is no person to exercise parental authority over a child born out of wedlock pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the mother becomes a person of parental authority. This refers to the case where there is no father or mother who exercises parental authority or the father or mother is unable to exercise parental authority. Thus, the plaintiff's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's report of birth to the plaintiff and became aware of the plaintiff. Accordingly, since the father's father's and child relationship was established between the plaintiff and the non-party 2, who is the wife under the deceased non-party 1's law, the above deceased's person of parental authority is the father's mother's mother's child. Even if the plaintiff was living together with his mother's mother, it cannot be viewed as a case where the non-party 2 cannot exercise parental authority.

(2) In the case of Article 921(2) of the Civil Act, one of the parties to this conflict of interest shall be a minor subject to the parental authority, and the other party shall be a minor subject to the parental authority. In this case, since the person with parental authority is unable to represent both of the minors, it is necessary to appoint a special representative for a minor, and even if there are cases where the person with parental authority becomes an adult who does not obey the parental authority of the person with parental authority and the minor subject to the parental authority, the person with parental authority can exercise his own rights as a legal representative for the minor, so such legal act of the person with parental authority shall not be deemed to constitute an act of conflict of interest (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da2340, Mar. 9, 1976). The act of the person with parental authority shall not be deemed to be an act of conflict of interest (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da2340, Mar. 9, 197). At the same time, Nonparty 2, who is the plaintiff, the person with parental authority and the plaintiff or the plaintiff.

(3) As the Plaintiff’s mother, the provision on the guardian’s exercise of parental authority shall be applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 912 of the Civil Act. Since Nonparty 2’s renunciation of inheritance of this case’s case’s case’s case’s case constitutes an act aimed at the acquisition, loss, and alteration of the right to real estate under Article 950(1)3 of the Civil Act, Nonparty 2’s refusal of inheritance on behalf of the Plaintiff constitutes an action for the purpose of acquisition, loss, or alteration of the right to real estate under Article 950(1)3 of the Civil Act, the consent of the family council is obtained. However, in cancelling the inheritance on behalf of the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no consent, the other party to the revocation should be deemed to

(4) We examine the grounds of appeal No. 4.

The act of Nonparty 2’s return to his parental authority and Nonparty 3 and 4’s refusal of the inheritance of the said minor’s property along with his share of inheritance cannot be deemed to violate the principle of trust and good faith in this case, barring any special circumstance.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)