In case where the inheritor has taken over the litigation procedures of the lawsuit instituted by the decedent without a litigation capacity, whether to cure the defects in the litigation capacity or resolution

Even if there was no litigation capacity due to the unknown state at the time of the filing of the suit, if his/her co-property heir died after the filing of the suit, and his/her co-property heir received it by the first instance court after the filing of the suit, the defect in his/her litigation capacity is already cured.

Article 47 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant corporation

Seoul Central District Court (83 Gohap7642) in the first instance trial

1. The appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit incurred by the plaintiff 1's appeal shall be borne by the same plaintiff, and the costs of the lawsuit incurred by the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On August 10, 1982, the defendant shall execute the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as of August 10, 1982, No. 26881, which was part of the receipt of the Gwangju District Court No. 2681 on August 10, 1982, with respect to the shares of 1/26 of the same real estate to plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4/26 of the same real estate.

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

The judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff 1 shall be revoked.

On August 10, 1982, the defendant completed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the vicinity of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the shares of 6/26 of the real estate stated in the attached list to the same plaintiff.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second trials.

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

Plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the same plaintiffs in both the first and second instances.

1. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant alleged that the deceased non-party 1 was in an unknown state on July 4, 1983, which was at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, and that the lawsuit in this case was filed by a person without legal capacity and thus should be dismissed as illegal. Thus, even if the deceased non-party 1 did not have litigation capacity due to the unknown state at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case as alleged by the defendant, the deceased non-party 1 died on November 10, 1983, which was after the date of the lawsuit in this case, and his co-property heir and the non-party 2 (the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive) were confirmed to have been accepted by the court of first instance on January 30, 1984, and it is obvious that the above defect in the defendant's claim in this case was already cured.

2. Judgment on the merits

(A) On August 10, 1982, the fact that the registration of creation of a collateral (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of creation of a collateral") was completed on August 9, 1982 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant real estate") by the Gwangju District Court No. 26881 on August 10, 1982 that the maximum amount of the claim was KRW 67,100,000,000, the debtor was the non-party 3 and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security as the defendant is the defendant company

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1,2(각 등기부등본), 갑 제2호증(호적등본), 갑 제5호증의 1(등기신청서), 갑 제6호증의 4,5,7,8,11,16,18(각 진술조서),15,20(각 피의자신문조서), 갑 제8호증(공소장), 갑 제9호증(판결), 공성부분의 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제3호증(진단서)의 각 기재, 제1심증인 소외 4, 5의 각 증언 및 당사자 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 보면 이 사건 부동산의 소유자인 망 소외 1(이 사건 소제기일 이후인 1983.11.10. 사망함)은 1982.2.22.부터 뇌실질내혈종등으로 인한 의식불명상태로 전남대학교 의과대학 부속병원에 입원하여 식물인간의 상태에 있었는데 망 소외 1의 장남인 소외 2는 1982.7. 초순경 소외 3으로부터 그가 1982.6.15.에 소외 농어촌개발공사로부터 농안기금 금 62,000.000원을 배정받았으나 그 융자에 필요한 피고회사의 이행보험증권을 발급받을 만한 담보물이 없어서 그 융자를 받지 못하고 있으니 그 담보물을 제공하여 주면 위 융자금을 받아서 그중 금 30,000,000원을 연 2푼의 저리로 대여하여 주고 그 나머지 융자금으로는 채소종자 최종포설치사업을 동업하자는 제의를 받자 마침 그 당시 그가 경영하고 있던 목장의 운영자금이 부족하여 고심중이던 소외 2는 위 제의를 승낙하여 소외 2, 3등은 위와같이 식물인간의 상태에 있는 망 소외 1 소유의 이 사건 부동산을 관계문서를 위조하여 담보물로 사용하기로 합의하고서 소외 2는 1982.8.초순경 광주시내 사법서사 사무실 등지에서 망 소외 1이 그의 소유인 이 사건 부동산을 피고회사의 소외 3에 대한 이행보중에 관한 담보로 제공한다는 내용의 담보제공승낙서(갑 제4호증의 2, 을 제1호증과 같다), 망 소외 1이 소외 3이 피고 회사에 대하여 현재 부담하거나 장래 부담하게 될 채무의 담보로 이 사건 부동산에 순위 제2번, 채권최고액 금 67,100,000원의 근저당권을 설정한다는 내용의 근저당권설정계약서(갑 제4호증의 1, 을 제2호증의 2와 같다), 소외 3이 피고회사와 사이에 보험계약자를 소외 3, 피보험자를 소외 농어촌개발공사로 하는 보험금액 금 67,027,945원의 지급보증보험을 체결함에 있어 피고회사가 그 보험금액을 장래 지급한 때에는 망 소외 1이 소외 3의 피고회사에 대한 구상채무를 연대보증한다는 내용의 보증보험약정서(을 제4호증의 2)의 담보제공승낙인, 근저당권설정자, 연대보증인란에 위와 같이 의식불명의 상태에 있는 망 소외 1의 이름을 적어넣고 임의로 그의 인장을 날인하여 이를 각 위조한 다은 위 서유들중 담보제공승낙서에 관하여서는 망 소외 1의 입원실에 들어가 의식불명상태에 있는 망 소외 1의 엄지손가락을 붙들어 망 소외 1의 기명날인 옆란에 그의 무인까지 찍은 사실, 또한 소외 2는 그의 어머니인 원고 1( 망 소외 1의 처)과 함께 망 소외 1이 그의 인감증명서 발급신청을 원고 1에게 위임한다는 내용의 인감증명발급신청용 위임장(을 제3호증의 2, 을 제5호증의 4)의 위임인란에 망 소외 1의 기명날인을 각 위조한 다음 위와 같은 방법으로 그의 기명날인 옆란에 그의 무인까지 찍은 다음 원고 1이 이를 관할 동사무소에 제출하여 망 소외 1의 보증용(을 제3호증의 1) 및 근저당권설정용(을 제5호증의 3)인감증명서를 각 1통씩 발급받은 사실, 소외 2는 소외 3과 함께 위와 같은 방법으로 마련한 위 서류등을 1982. 초순경 피고회사에 교부하여 이 사건 부동산을 위와 같이 소외 3의 피고회사에 대한 장래 구상채무의 담보물로 제공함으로 인하여 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 위와 같은 이 사건 근저당설정등기가 경료된 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 갑 제6호증의 6,17(각 피의자신문조서)의 각 기재와 제1심증인 소외 6의 일부증언만에 의하여서는 위 인정사실을 번복하기에 부족하고 반증은 없다.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate of this case, which was completed on the real estate of this case, is a registration made by Nonparty 2, etc. in a way of forging relevant documents, etc. while Nonparty 1, the owner of the real estate of this case, was unable to perform his/her intention, and

(B) On this basis, the defendant and the non-party 1 were the representative of the deceased non-party 1 at the time of the contract to establish the mortgage of this case. The plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 also obtained a comprehensive mandate from the deceased non-party 1 to borrow money as security and use it for his hospitalization or his family's living expenses, education expenses, etc. on behalf of the deceased non-party 1. Accordingly, the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 obtained a priority certificate of the plaintiff 1 as the representative of the deceased non-party 1 on May 6, 1982, the transfer of the contract to establish the mortgage of this case, and obtained a priority certificate of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 from the above non-party 2 to borrow 30,00,000 won from the above non-party 1 and used it as evidence for the non-party 1's certificate of right to establish the mortgage of this case (this case's certificate of authority No. 2).

(C) At the time of this case’s mortgage contract, Plaintiff 1 was the wife of the deceased Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2 committed the act of establishing the instant mortgage under the circumstances under which the deceased Nonparty 1’s right to raise the medical treatment expenses of the deceased Nonparty 1, who was hospitalized in prison due to his unknown consciousness as his head. Thus, this is alleged to be effective as the act of establishing the instant mortgage. Thus, there is no evidence suggesting that the establishment registration of the instant mortgage was valid as it constitutes an express representation beyond his authority, and there is no basic right to represent the deceased Nonparty 1 as the wife of the deceased Nonparty 1. However, just because the deceased Nonparty 1 was hospitalized in a state of food unknown at that time, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendant had a right to represent the deceased Nonparty 1 to do the act of establishing the instant mortgage on behalf of the deceased Nonparty 1, and there is no other evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion that there was no other justifiable reason.

(D) Even if the establishment registration of the instant real estate was invalid due to the death of the deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were jointly inherited. The plaintiff 1 knew that the non-party 2 provided the instant real estate as security to the defendant, and the non-party 2 knew that the non-party 1 had obtained a certificate of the personal seal impression in an unlawful manner, etc., and the non-party 2 knew that the non-party 3 did not obtain a signature or seal on the instant real estate under the name of the deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 6's office's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's counter-6's share.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, from the registration of the establishment of a new real estate in the name of the defendant, the part equivalent to 1/26 shares in the plaintiff 2, 3's inheritance shares, 26 shares in the plaintiff 4, 5, and 6's inheritance shares in the registration of the establishment of a new real estate in the name of the defendant and the part equivalent to 26 shares in the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6's inheritance shares in the registration of the establishment of a new real estate in the name of the defendant shall be deemed null and void without any cause. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the cancellation of the establishment of a new real estate in the above shares in the above plaintiffs. The part equivalent to 6/26 shares in the plaintiff 1's inheritance shares in the registration of the establishment of a new real estate in the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall be deemed to be valid as a registration being combined with the actual relation. Thus, the plaintiff 1's claim shall be dismissed.

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Justice)