(a) Scope of right of representation for daily living between husband and wife;

(b) A real estate buyer fails to investigate whether he/she has the authority to dispose of the seller and a negligence in possession;

A. The right of normal family affairs between husband and wife under Article 827(1) of the Civil Act is limited to a couple's act of resistance to a family life as a community. Thus, the act of disposing of a property of a father living in a foreign country due to the wife's separate status cannot be deemed as falling under a common family affairs between husband and wife.

(b)A person who purchases immovables shall, unless there are special circumstances, be deemed to have been examined by the seller whether the seller has the right to dispose of the immovables, and shall not be deemed to have been negligent in the possession of the immovables if it was purchased without such investigation, even though the seller would have been aware of the absence of the right to dispose of the immovables if it had

A. Article 827(1)(b) of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1621 delivered on March 26, 1985 (Gong1985,619). Na. 90Da13178 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 974), Supreme Court Decision 91Da27082 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong192, 101) 92Da30245 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong193, 108)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kim Jae-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na14399 delivered on February 9, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) In light of the records, the court below determined that the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, which was completed on each of the real estate of this case, shall be cancelled since the deceased non-party 1 and the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming transfer of ownership by falsely stating the address of the plaintiff and obtained a favorable judgment. The above non-party 1 and the defendant concluded a sales contract with the non-party 2, who obtained the right of representation from the plaintiff as the plaintiff's wife or who held the right of ordinary household affairs from the plaintiff as the plaintiff's wife, and thus, they rejected the defendant's assertion that the registration of transfer of ownership of this case is consistent with the substantive relations. In addition, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, such as the theory

Article 827(1) of the Civil Act provides that the right of ordinary family life between husband and wife shall be limited to a couple's act of coming into a family life as a community. Thus, the act of disposing of the plaintiff's property while staying in a foreign country by the above non-party 2, who is the plaintiff's wife, can not be deemed as belonging to the common family life between husband and wife.

All arguments are without merit.

(2) Unless there are special circumstances, a person who purchases a real estate shall examine whether the seller has the right to dispose of the real estate to the seller, and shall not be deemed to have been negligent in the possession of the real estate if the buyer purchased the real estate without such investigation, even though the seller would have been aware of the lack of the right to dispose of the real estate if he

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the above non-party 1 or the defendant filed a lawsuit by falsely indicating the plaintiff's address at the time of purchase of each real estate in this case owned by the plaintiff from the above non-party 2, and obtained a judgment by subrogation, and completed registration of preservation of ownership in the plaintiff's name as subrogation registration. However, there is no evidence to conclude that the defendant examined the non-party 2 as to whether the above non-party 2 was a legitimate disposal authority by demanding the plaintiff's proxy or a certificate of seal imprint, etc., or directly contact with the plaintiff. Rather, the above non-party 2 entered into a sales contract with the above non-party 2 without confirming only the plaintiff's domicile at the time of the plaintiff's stay in a foreign country and it is difficult to obtain the plaintiff's certificate of seal imprint, etc., and therefore, the defendant was negligent in not investigating the above non-party 2's right to dispose of the forest of this case from the above non-party 1, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant had no special authority to purchase the above non-party 12.

All arguments are without merit.

(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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)