1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 20, 1939, the deceased-friendly C purchased the ownership of 67.2 square meters of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD road (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and acquired the ownership. Since C has no possibility of leaving the previous residence, E, the mother of C, was appointed as a custodian of C on April 7, 1964.

B. On June 19, 1964, E received a decision to permit sale of the instant real estate from the Seoul Family Court (the Seoul Family Court 64B11) and sold the instant real estate to Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 22, 1964.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5, 18 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Seoul Family Court, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, has a duty to manage and supervise E, the administrator, to fulfill his/her property management obligation, including reporting property status.

Nevertheless, the Seoul Family Court permitted the disposal of the instant real estate at least two months since the date when E was appointed as an administrator, and did not state the reason for permission while permitting the sale of all the instant real estate, including the instant real estate. Without any accompanying measures, the Seoul Family Court neglected to ensure that the instant real estate is disposed of without permission by E, in violation of the duty to supervise and supervise the administrator by failing to appoint a special agent, while making a decision to permit the sale of the entire and comprehensive property of C without appointing a special agent.

As such, the Seoul Family Court’s act constitutes a tort against the plaintiffs, who are the successors of C, and the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the claim, which is a part of the value of the real estate of this case, to the plaintiffs

B. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, Eul appointed as the administrator of Eul, an absentee, as alleged by the plaintiff, received the Seoul Family Court's decision to permit sale.