Main Issues
In a case where a husband was hospitalized in a hospital for a long time as a mental illness, and did not prepare for hospitalization expenses, living expenses, and educational expenses for children at the time of hospitalization, he/she had the right of representation for his/her wife, and sold the family unit owned by his/her husband at a reasonable price, and sold the remaining expenses to him/her, and if he/she purchased the house by substitute, it shall be deemed that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the wife had the right of representation for the husband, in an objective view of the cases where the buyer had known of
Summary of Judgment
When a husband is hospitalized in a hospital for a long time as a mental illness, if he/she did not prepare for the expenses of hospitalization, living expenses, education expenses for children, etc., he/she has the right of representation for his/her wife and sold the family unit owned by the husband at a reasonable price, and if he/she purchased the house instead of the above expenses, he/she should be viewed as a justifiable ground to believe that the husband had the right of representation of the husband because he/she had been aware of the above reason, if he/she purchased the house instead of
[Reference Provisions]
Article 126 of the Civil Act, Article 827 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff
Defendant-Appellant
Shin Young-chul et al.
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2286 delivered on July 2, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2286 delivered on July 2, 1970
Text
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The Defendants’ agent’ grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2
According to the judgment of the court below, the court below concluded that the plaintiff's treatment at her home due to a traffic accident caused by the plaintiff's mental disorder, and the non-party 1, who was the plaintiff's wife, operated the registration-related documents by gathering the plaintiff's seal impression for two months from May 24 to October, 10, and sold the plaintiff's seal impression to non-party 2 at 35 square meters in Seoul (SP omitted) site and 11.7 square meters in its ground, which is the plaintiff's ownership, and that it was null and void. The non-party 1 used the plaintiff's seal impression as above, and even according to the non-party 2's testimony, the non-party 1 knew the non-party 1 as the plaintiff's principal, and did not know that the non-party 1 was not the plaintiff's person himself but the non-party 1 had the right to dispose of it, but did not know whether he had the right to dispose of it, and the non-party 1 had been in his capacity to live in the plaintiff's house or household treatment.
However, according to the evidence stated by the court below, the plaintiff was hospitalized in the hospital for 10 months or more, and the interview with his wife was prohibited during his hospitalization. If the plaintiff was unable to respond to his family counseling because the plaintiff was unable to determine the death at the time, and there was no preparation or preparation for school expenses or education expenses for his family members after his hospitalization, the non-party 1, who was his wife, sold this case to the non-party 2 without his title. In this case, even if the non-party 1 had the right of representation of the plaintiff, and the sale price was proper, the non-party 1 sold the house to the non-party 2, who was the plaintiff's home, with the intention to purchase the house on behalf of the plaintiff, after appropriating it for hospitalization, living expenses, and education expenses, and then sold it on behalf of the non-party 2, this reason is objectively considered as not having known that the non-party 2 had become aware of the plaintiff's right of representation, and thus, it did not affect the plaintiff's mental condition, sale relation, and its reasons.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges without examining other grounds of appeal.
Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng