If the administrator of an absentee takes a lawsuit, the

The administrator of an absentee has the right to manage the property of the absentee, and it is legitimate for the administrator to institute a principal suit in the name of the absentee when the right to manage the property of the absentee is infringed. If the possession of the property owned by the absentee has been deprived of it to another person, it is merely a management act and merely a management act.

Article 25 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 64Da108 decided July 23, 1964 (Article 25(13) of the Civil Act, Article 25(13) of the Civil Act, Article 12 ② 67) 68Da2021 decided Dec. 24, 1968 (Article 25(16) of the Civil Act, Article 25(16) 31 of the Civil Act, Article 8030 16 ③321 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (Law No. 4292Hun23 delivered on April 1, 200)

This case is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

The defendant's attorney is revoked the original judgment as the purport of prosecution. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's lawsuit costs are assessed against the plaintiff in both the first and second instances, and the plaintiff's judgment in the order is sought.

As a de facto statement of both parties, the plaintiff's legal representative was missing after 9.28 uniforms from the 16th return to the captain of Chungcheongnam-do prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. The plaintiff's legal representative was appointed as the administrator of the plaintiff's absentee in Daejeon District Court's 4292 short-term 4292 non-party non-party, who was appointed as the plaintiff's administrator of the plaintiff's property. Since the defendant cultivated the land illegally from 4284 short-term 4284 long-term 4 long-term 4284 long-term 4 long-term ever long-term ever, he stated that he was the main lawsuit for seeking delivery and sought a declaration of provisional execution. With respect to the defendant's answer, the defendant cannot file a lawsuit against the plaintiff as the plaintiff's heir by this defense, and the non-party, who is the administrator, need not be appointed as the plaintiff's administrator of the property, and the plaintiff's legal representative cannot be allowed to file a lawsuit against the plaintiff's administrator of the deceased's property.

The defendant's legal representative cannot bring a lawsuit for the plaintiff's non-resident with this safety defense, and if he can bring a lawsuit in the name of the non-resident, the litigation performer shall be selected, and the non-party who is the administrator shall only be the administrator, and even if he has the authority, the administrator shall not be granted the authority to do so, and even if he has the authority, the administrator shall not be required to bring a lawsuit for the plaintiff's possession and cultivation of the land of this case from 4284 to 4284 with the response to the merits, because he may dispose of the managed real estate with the permission of the court as well as preservation in his own name.

After the plaintiff was missing, the non-party, etc., who was the original relative of the plaintiff, was granted the right of lawsuit from around 4284 in consultation with the plaintiff in the short-term 4284, and the non-party during the war was appointed as an estate administrator, the contract for the lawsuit with the defendant who entered into with the Dong will be valid. Even if the contract for the lawsuit is null and void under the Farmland Reform Act, even if the contract for the lawsuit is assumed null and void under the Farmland Reform Act, it is unfair by demanding the return of payment due to an illegal cause, and the consent of the whole evidence

First of all, it is necessary to bring a lawsuit in the name of the non-party who is an administrator of the non-resident because it is merely a management act to seek relief in the name of the non-resident when the administrator of the non-resident has the right to manage the property of the non-resident and the administrator of the non-resident is infringed upon the right to manage the property of the non-resident. Thus, the non-party who is the administrator of the non-resident's real estate is not entitled to bring a lawsuit in the name of the non-resident. The defendant's assertion on this issue is without merit. The non-party's assertion is that the non-party belongs to the plaintiff's ownership of the real estate, and that the defendant occupies the real estate from the short-term 4284, the non-party has been granted the right to bring a lawsuit in the non-resident's neighboring relatives after the plaintiff was missing, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has cultivated the real estate in the name of the non-resident with legitimate title, and therefore, the defendant's claim to bring a lawsuit in the non-resident's opinion is justified.

Judges Hong Goods (Presiding Judge)