The meaning of urgent cases prescribed in Article 943 of the Civil Act, which is an exceptional case where a guardian may exercise the authority over the property of the ward before completing the investigation of property and the preparation of a list.

In exceptional cases where a guardian is able to exercise the right to the property of the ward before completion of the investigation of the property and the preparation of the list, the case of urgency stipulated in Article 943 of the Civil Act refers to the case where there is a risk of suffering irreparable damages if he/she fails to dispose of the property of the ward before completion of the preparation of the list of property. Therefore, it cannot be deemed an urgent case solely on the ground that the guardian married with the foreigner and left the country to move, and the ward was under the circumstances of departure along with the foreigner

Articles 941 and 943 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Kim Ho-shan et al.

1. The Defendants shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which completed No. 1744 on February 14, 1979, with respect to the Plaintiff 1’s share of 3/5 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet and one fifth of the share of 1/5 of the real estate listed in the same list to Plaintiff 2.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") was originally owned by Nonparty 1, the father of the plaintiffs. The fact that Nonparty 1 died on July 2, 1967, and that, as his children, Plaintiff 1, the husband of Australia, was jointly inherited at the ratio of 3/5 shares, Plaintiff 2, his wife, and Nonparty 2, who were his wife, jointly succeeded to it at the ratio of 1/5 shares, respectively, and that the registration of transfer of each ownership of the above plaintiffs and Nonparty 2 was completed on June 10, 1976 and each of the above real estate was completed from the above plaintiffs and Nonparty 2 on January 18, 1979, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. First of all, Nonparty 1’s transfer registration of ownership on each of the instant real estate was made by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 2’s non-party 1’s husband’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 4’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 4’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s witness

3. Next, even if non-party 2 transferred the right to dispose of the shares of the plaintiffs to non-party 4 as a person with parental authority, at the time of the above agreement, the non-party 2 was divorced and lost parental authority over the plaintiffs. Therefore, the above agreement as a person with parental authority is null and void. Thus, the non-party 2 made a marriage report on January 6, 1979, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendants was completed on the grounds of sale on each of the real estate of this case on January 18 of the same year, and that it was not possible to reverse the plaintiffs' assertion that the non-party 2 transferred the right to dispose of shares of this case to the non-party 1 as a person with parental authority on January 18, 1979, which was not a person with parental authority at the time of marriage. Thus, the defendants' assertion that the non-party 1 was not a person with parental authority's right to dispose of shares of this case, which was not a person with parental authority.

The Defendants asserted that the transfer registration of ownership transfer under the joint name of the Defendants on each of the above real estate constitutes an effective act of disposal by a legal guardian, even though Nonparty 2 lost parental authority upon the transfer of the plaintiffs' right to shares in each of the above real estate at the time of the transfer of the right to shares in each of the above real estate, since it constitutes an act of disposal by the legal guardian, the registration of ownership transfer under the joint name of the Defendants on each of the above real estate constitutes a lawful and effective registration. Thus, even if Nonparty 2 disposed of the plaintiffs' property as a legal guardian since the plaintiffs did not take office as a legal guardian or have reported the commencement of guardianship, it is invalid. Accordingly, according to the above evidence No. 1 and No. 2, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiffs were a lineal blood relative with Nonparty 2 who was born as a lineal blood relative, lineal blood relative, and family head within the third degree of relationship with the minor, and even if there were two or more lineal blood relatives or collateral blood relatives, they cannot be viewed as a legal guardian's first priority in the appointment of the defendant.

In order to exercise the authority over the property of the ward as a legal guardian, in order to investigate the ward's property and prepare a list of property, as well as to dispose of important property including real estate, the non-party 2 transferred the right to dispose of the plaintiffs' shares in each of the real estate of this case by convening a family council. However, the non-party 2 failed to investigate the plaintiffs' property or prepare a list of property and did not obtain the consent of the family council. Thus, the transfer of the right to dispose of the plaintiffs' shares in each of the real estate of this case is not effective. Thus, the non-party 2, as a legal guardian at the time of the transfer of this case, did not clearly dispute the defendants that the non-party 2 did not intend to investigate the property or prepare a list of property and did not obtain the consent of the family council. Thus, even if the guardian did not obtain the consent of the family council in disposing of the real estate owned by the ward, this is merely an act that can be revoked and it cannot be naturally null and void, but if the legal guardian did not prepare a list of property, it

In regard to this, even if Nonparty 2 transferred the right to dispose of the Plaintiffs’ shares to each of the instant real estate without preparing the property inspection or inventory, Nonparty 2, at the time, left Korea to move to Australia by married with the Pastradar, and the Plaintiffs and Nonparty 2 had to leave the Republic of Korea, and thus, there was an urgent circumstance to dispose of the Plaintiffs’ shares to each of the instant real estate without preparing the inventory of property. Thus, Nonparty 2’s above assignment of real estate was a valid defense again, and the right to dispose of each of the instant real estate was transferred to Nonparty 4 due to such a relationship. However, Article 943 of the Civil Act provides that the guardian can exercise the right to dispose of the property of the ward prior to completion of the investigation and preparation of the inventory of property against the ward, and it is difficult to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no reason to deem otherwise.

In other words, the Defendants asserted that, at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership, Nonparty 2 was unaware of the fact that Nonparty 2 did not prepare the above property inspection or inventory, the Plaintiffs could not oppose the Defendants on the ground that they did not investigate the property of Nonparty 2’s disposal act, which is the legal guardian. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendants were well aware of the circumstances leading up to the transfer of each of the instant real estate by Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5, who was actually involved in taking over the right to dispose of each of the instant real estate from Nonparty 2. However, considering that Nonparty 2 was able to dispose of the Plaintiffs’ property in the status of the legal guardian as above without conducting the property inspection required by the legal guardian, it appears that Nonparty 2 entered into the transfer agreement of this case on the ground that he was able to dispose of the Plaintiffs’ property in the status of the legal guardian, and otherwise, Nonparty 2 was in the status of the guardian to conduct the property inspection or prepare the inventory, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants

4. Therefore, the act of transfer by Nonparty 2 as to the plaintiffs' shares in each of the real estate of this case is merely an act of unauthorized representation conducted without any investigation or preparation of a property list as a legal guardian, and it is null and void. In this case without any assertion or proof as to ratification, each of the above transfer registration in the name of the defendants with respect to the plaintiffs' shares in each of the real estate of this case, which was completed by the act of unauthorized Representation, is also a registration invalidation of cause. Thus, the defendants are obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each transfer registration of the order completed in the name of the defendants as to the shares in each of the real estate of this case, and the shares in the plaintiff 2 as to the plaintiff 1 and 1/5 as to the shares in each of the real estate of this case, the plaintiff 2 is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each transfer registration of the order completed in the name of the defendants as to the shares in this

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)