If, after a decision to appoint an administrator of absentee is made, the absentee is found to have died before such decision, the validity of the above decision.

As long as the court has decided to appoint an administrator of absentee, even if it became clear that the absentee died later, the authority of the administrator of absentee does not automatically cease to exist unless the above decision is cancelled by legitimate procedures.

Article 22 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da189 delivered on March 23, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 9545 delivered on July 19, 1979) 19DaDa241 delivered on March 23, 197, and Article 22(10)209 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and five others

Cheongju District Court (65Ka526) in the first instance

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The order of provisional disposition rendered on August 9, 1965 by the court below as to the case of provisional disposition 65Ka315 is revoked.

(3) The application for provisional disposition in this case is dismissed.

(4) The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by a person other than the applicant's administrator at all the first and second instances.

(5) This judgment may be provisionally executed only under Paragraph (2).

The respondent's agent is entitled to make a provisional disposition to the effect that the respondent 1 is not entitled to enter the land of 8-38 1,835 Y, the Respondent 1, the Respondent 2, the Respondent 2, the Respondent 8-38 8-38 73 , the 8-43 258 , and the 8-2 626 , the Respondent 3, the Respondent 40 8-40 , the Respondent 45 8-45 , the Respondent 5 75 , the Respondent 6, the Respondent on the ground of 8-8 73 75 , the 75 , the Respondent 8-73 75 , the Respondent 38 81 1 4 , the 4 , and the Claimant does not interfere with the use of the Claimant for each of the above land.

The respondent is seeking a judgment to the same effect as the disposition.

(1) First, the respondent is a person who died in the year when he was born in 1924 and died in the year when he was living. Thus, even if the applicant administrator was determined by the court as an absentee to appoint an administrator, the respondent's assertion that the decision to appoint the administrator is invalid, and as long as the court decided to appoint an absentee administrator once he was decided to appoint an absentee administrator, even if he was found to be deceased later, the respondent's above assertion is not extinguished as a matter of course unless the above decision is revoked by legitimate procedure, and thus, the respondent's above assertion is dismissed as without merit.

(2) The next applicant asserts that each of the real estate in this case is owned by the applicant, and the respondent is illegally occupied as stated in the purport of the application, so that the respondent's respective entry is prohibited and the respondent does not interfere with the use of the applicant. Thus, the provisional disposition on the dispute is aimed at preserving the future compulsory execution. Thus, the provisional disposition which results in the same result as the execution of this case can not be allowed unless there are special circumstances. Thus, in this case, the respondent's assertion in this case exceeds the purpose of the provisional disposition due to the so-called satisfactory provisional disposition, since the respondent's entry of the real estate in possession is prohibited and it does not interfere with the use of the applicant's land, and the plaintiff's claim in this case goes beyond the purpose of the provisional disposition, and there is no assertion and vindication as to the special circumstances other than the above, so the applicant's claim in this case is groundless.

Therefore, since the original judgment accepting the petitioner's principal claim is not correct, it shall be revoked, and the burden of litigation costs shall be applied to Article 96 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the provisional execution declaration shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 716 of the same Act.

Judges Shin Chang-dong (Presiding Judge)