The court referred to in Article 26 (2) of the Civil Act pursuant to Article 2 (1) 1, Article 2 (1) 1 and Article 2 (2) of the Family Trial Rules and Article 32 of the Family Trial Rules refers to the family court. Therefore, remuneration to an absentee property administrator appointed by the family court shall be deemed to be paid by the family court as the property of the absentee.

According to the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Family Trial Act and Article 32 of the Family Trial Rules, the court referred to in Article 2 (2) of the Family Trial Rules refers to the family court. Therefore, the remuneration to an absentee property administrator appointed by the family court shall be deemed to be paid by the family court as the property of the absentee.

Article 26(2) of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Family Trial Act, Article 32 of the Family Trial Rules

A and four others

Jeju District Court Decision 70B1 delivered on December 28, 1970

The part concerning the claims for remuneration by an administrator of absentee among the original decision shall be reversed, and the part concerning this case shall be transferred to the collegiate division of the Gwangju District Court.

The re-appeal against the re-appellant's subsequent claim is dismissed.

Re-Appellants and Appellants' grounds for reappeal

1. Regarding the remuneration for an administrator of an absentee appointed by the court under Article 26(2) of the Civil Act, the court may pay the administrator appointed by the court a reasonable remuneration with the property of the absentee. According to Article 2(1)1 of the Family Trial Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Family Trial Act, or Article 32 of the Rules on Family Trial, a disposition on the management of an absentee's property is to be decided by the family court, and the case on the management of an absentee's property is to be under the jurisdiction of the family court at his domicile. As such, the court under Article 26(2) of the Civil Act refers to the family court, so the remuneration for the administrator of an absentee's property appointed by the family court shall be deemed to be paid by the family court as the property of the absentee.

According to the records, the court below rejected the above portion of the claim for remuneration on the non-resident property administrator's claim for remuneration on the ground that the non-resident property administrator's payment did not have any provision under Article 2 (2) of the Family Trial Act. However, as seen above, the court below rejected the claim for payment on the non-resident property administrator's payment of remuneration despite the provisions under Article 26 (2) of the Civil Act. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under the Family Trial Act and Article 26 (2) of the Civil Act, and by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 26 (2).

2. With respect to the claim of the administrator for the expenses for the management of an absentee's property, there is no provision of the Family Trial Act and the company's family adjudication rules as to the payment of the expenses, and there is no ground that other regulations can pay the expenses in the family court. Thus, the claim for the expenses for the management of the absentee's property is improper. In this regard, the judgment of the court below on the part of the claim for the expenses for the management of the absentee's property is just and there is no ground to discuss the legitimate measures of the court below on the contrary.

Therefore, the part concerning the claims for remuneration by an absentee administrator among the original decision shall be reversed and the part concerning this case shall be transferred to the collegiate division of the Gwangju District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)