Whether the registration completed by the administrator's act of disposal before the declaration of disappearance is made after the non-resident's death became missing (affirmative)

If a person deemed deceased was appointed by the court as an absentee whose death or death was unknown before, the administrator may continue to exercise his/her authority unless the decision of appointment is revoked, even though the administrator confirmed the death of the absentee. Therefore, registration made by the administrator's act of disposal before the decision of appointment is revoked shall be presumed legally made through all procedures such as the court's permission of disposition.

Articles 25, 28, and 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2353 decided Feb. 21, 1967 (No. 15 ① civil 130), 67Da1604, 1605 decided Sep. 17, 1968, 71Da189 decided Mar. 23, 1971 (No. 19 ① civil 241)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Na5255 delivered on March 27, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the second ground for appeal.

Based on the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration was made without legal grounds under the circumstances where the non-party 1 was missing in the sixth 25 Incident, and his wife was appointed as administrator on September 26, 1962, but the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the defendant on June 11, 196 or June 20, 1967. However, the court decided on November 18, 1980 that the non-party 1 was declared missing on Sep. 30, 1955 when its adjudication period was terminated, and it confirmed that the above registration was made on Sep. 30, 195, and became final and conclusive, and thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration was made without legal grounds under the circumstances where the non-party 2 was appointed as administrator of the non-party 1, and thus, it did not err in the misapprehension of the court's judgment on the grounds that the registration was presumed to have been made under the above legal procedure.

(2) We examine the first ground for appeal.

A registration made in accordance with an application for registration under the name of the deceased shall be presumed to have been duly made through all procedures, such as the permission of the court necessary for the revocation of the decision on appointment of the administrator, and the legal theory that the registration made in accordance with the application for registration under the name of the deceased shall be presumed to have been completed at the time of the expiration of the adjudication of disappearance. However, if a person deemed to have been deceased is an absentee whose life or death was unknown prior to the adjudication of disappearance and an administrator was appointed from the court in connection with the management of the property, the administrator may continue to exercise his authority unless the decision on appointment is revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da2353 delivered on February 21, 1967; 71Da189 delivered on March 23, 197). In such case, the court below's decision on appointment of the administrator shall be presumed to have been made in accordance with the legal reasoning and the presumption of legal reasoning as to the registration's effect without the permission of the court's revocation of the registration.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)