Whether the juristic act of a person with parental authority, who is a legal representative for a minor, constitutes an act of conflicting interest under the provisions of Article 921 (2) of the Civil Act in the case of conflict between an adult and a minor child.

The act of conflicting interest under Article 921 (2) of the Civil Act refers to not only a juristic act by which one of the parties is a minor who is subject to parental authority, but also a act by which a person with parental authority creates a mortgage on real estate owned by another minor for the purpose of a minor, such as the act by a person with parental authority over the rent for the benefit of one of the minor, but also a case where the other minor is disadvantaged, but also in any case, the parties to the act of conflicting interest shall be a minor who is subject to parental authority of the person with parental authority, and in any case, where the interest conflict between the person who does not obey parental authority of the person with parental authority and the minor who is subject to parental authority due to the age of majority, the person with parental authority may exercise its 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 conflicting interest under the above

Kim Jung-J Kim

Freeboard Kim

Jeonju District Court Decision 75Na80 delivered on November 26, 1975

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was born out of wedlock between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was not the birth of the non-party 3, who was the wife of the deceased, and the non-party 3, who was the non-party 3, who was a minor under March 29, 1973, taking advantage of the legal representative's status as the plaintiff, and was the non-party 4, who was a minor subject to parental authority, provided real estate owned by the plaintiff as security on behalf of the plaintiff 4 for the above 4 and completed the registration of the creation of mortgage stated in the purport of the claim on behalf of the plaintiff 3. Thus, the above mortgage creation act done by the non-party 3 on behalf of the plaintiff 4 is beneficial to the non-party 4, who is the non-party 3, who is subject to parental authority. Thus, since it is an unfavorable legal act against the plaintiff who is not a special representative, the above act of non-party 3's establishment of mortgage becomes null and void.

I think it is reasonable to interpret that this act constitutes a legal act under Article 921 (2) of the Civil Act between the minor who is a minor subject to parental authority of the person with parental authority, as well as a juristic act under which the minor becomes one of the parties, and as a result, a person with parental authority borrows money from others for one of the minor, it shall be beneficial for the minor as well as any disadvantage to the other minor. However, in some cases, the parties to this act shall be a minor subject to parental authority, and the other party shall not be a minor subject to parental authority, but shall not be a minor subject to parental authority of both parties, so if the other party violates the above act under Article 921 (2) of the Civil Act, he shall not be appointed a special representative for one of the minors (for the above minor, he shall be appointed a minor). This act under Article 97 (1) of the Civil Act shall not be deemed to constitute a legal act under Article 90 (4) of the Civil Act if the other party is a minor subject to parental authority and a minor subject to parental authority.

Therefore, in order to determine that the act of establishing a mortgage in this case by Nonparty 3 is an act of conflicting interest under Article 921(2) of the Civil Act, the court below should have first judged that the act of Nonparty 4 and the plaintiff was a minor who is subject to the parental authority by Nonparty 3, and should have judged that the above act of Nonparty 3 was an act of non-party 3 as an act of violating Article 921(2) of the Civil Act without considering the above point of view, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 921(2) of the Civil Act and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)