The validity of an agreement under which the mother shall exercise parental authority over his or her children while divorced;

Since the person with parental authority determined by the provisions of the Civil Code can not change the person with parental authority arbitrarily, the agreement is null and void.

Article 909 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Jeju District Court (76 Gohap109) in the first instance

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On December 31, 1973, the defendant filed for the plaintiffs with the Jeju District Court of Law No. 20740 on December 31, 1973, with respect to No. 1438 of Leedo-ri 1438, the defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership due to the decision of approval

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

Although Nonparty 1, the father of the plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in this case with the legal representative of the plaintiffs, Nonparty 1, who was the father of the plaintiff, was married to Nonparty 2 and divorced on June 26, 1965 after the birth of the plaintiffs, and all the care of the plaintiffs and the exercise of parental authority over the plaintiffs at the time of divorce was agreed to be entrusted to Nonparty 2 at the time of divorce, Nonparty 1 cannot be considered as a person with parental authority of the plaintiffs, and Nonparty 1 was missing until the time of the lawsuit in this case after the divorce with Nonparty 2 died, and the parental authority over the plaintiffs was exercised by Nonparty 2 until May 30, 1966, and thereafter the agreement was exercised by Nonparty 3, who was the part of the plaintiff's child's child, and the parental authority over the plaintiffs was extinguished at his discretion due to the long-term absence of parental authority, and even if so, Nonparty 1 did not have any such legal representative's claim that the parental authority was lost pursuant to Article 924 of the Civil Act.

Then, at the time of the death of May 30, 1966, Nonparty 2, who exercised parental authority over the plaintiffs, designated Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 5 as guardian. Thus, the legal representative of the plaintiffs, despite the above Nonparty, who is the guardian, asserted that the lawsuit of this case brought on the premise that the plaintiff 1 is a legal representative, is defective in its legal representative authority. Thus, according to Article 931 of the Civil Act, the parent who exercises parental authority over the minor can designate a guardian by will. Thus, in order to designate a guardian for the plaintiffs who are minors, Nonparty 2 should have exercised parental authority over the plaintiffs at the time of his existence. Thus, Nonparty 2 recognized the fact that the guardian was born to his father after the judicial divorce with the non-party 1, and therefore, the non-party 2 cannot be designated as a legal guardian for the plaintiffs. Thus, it is not clear that the non-party 2 and the non-party 25 cannot be designated as a guardian for the above household affairs.

2. Judgment on the merits

The facts that Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were owned by Non-Party 1 and that Non-Party 2 were non-Party 1 and their father were non-Party 2 and Non-Party 1 were deceased on June 26, 196. The non-Party 2 died on the non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were non-Party 1 and Non-Party 3 were non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were non-Party 7's non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2's non-Party 5's non-Party 1's non-Party 1's non-Party 2's non-Party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3.

Defendant 3 and 5 sold the above building site to Nonparty 6 according to the intent of the plaintiffs, and it is not so. Nonparty 3 and 5 sold the above building site to Nonparty 6 as the guardian of the plaintiffs, and even if it is not so, the above building site 85 was sold to Nonparty 3 and 2 under the trust of Nonparty 2 after the joint contribution by Nonparty 3 and 2 was purchased, and the registration was entrusted to Nonparty 2. Thus, Nonparty 3 asserted that the sale of the building site is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship. Thus, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiffs directly sold the building site to Nonparty 6 or sold it according to the intent of the plaintiffs, and there is no evidence to deem that Nonparty 3 sold the building site to Nonparty 6 or the plaintiffs could not become the guardian, and therefore, Nonparty 6 sold the above building site without authority to Nonparty 6 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of forgery of necessary documents in collusion with Nonparty 7 and the above assertion is without merit.

The defendant's attorney argues that the plaintiff's claim of this case was not effective against the defendant while cancelling the sales contract between the plaintiffs and the non-party 6, but it is not based on the premise that the plaintiff's claim of this case was cancelled between the plaintiffs and the non-party 6, so the above assertion is groundless.

Next, the defendant's attorney was in custody and education for the plaintiffs and the non-party 3 and the non-party 5. In addition, since the non-party 2 designated the non-party 3 as a guardian and disposed of the above site by delegation of the right to dispose of the above land, the above sale was based on the legitimate authority of the non-party, and even if the non-party 3 and the non-party 5 did not have the right to represent the above land, the non-party 6 believed that the right to represent exists, as well as the non-party 6 believed that the above non-party's act of selling the above site is valid in light of the legal principle of expression agency, so it is not possible for the non-party 2 to appoint the plaintiffs' guardian, and there is no evidence to deem that the non-party 2 delegated the right to dispose of the above site to the non-party 3 and the non-party 5 at the time of his existence, and there is no basic authority to represent the defendant's attorney at least to establish the defendant's representative.

Therefore, the majority 85 of this case, which was jointly inherited by the plaintiffs as the father of the plaintiffs, can be effectively disposed of by only the non-party 1, who is the person in parental authority. Thus, the non-party 3 or the non-party 5 sold it to the non-party 6 is null and void. Furthermore, the non-party 6 conspired with the non-party 7 to forge the documents for the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the deceased non-party 2 and made the transfer registration in the future. Thus, the transfer registration of the non-party 6 is null and void by any mother, and it is deemed null and void at the time of the above registration of the defendant's name, and the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the above transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for the implementation of this case

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court with the same result is just and without merit, and the appeal by the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant.

Judges next Full-Time (Presiding Judge)