(a) Whether the father or mother is a minor who is not a natural father or not, but who is an agent for the minor in performing an act of conflicting interest;

B. The meaning of the act of conflicting interest under Article 921 of the Civil Code

(c) The effect of division consultation where one special representative acts on behalf of several persons at the time of division consultation on inherited property between the enemy and the minor number of persons; and

A. According to Article 909(2) of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990), the enemy mother may engage in a legal act on behalf of a minor who is not the natural parent of his/her own parental authority on behalf of the minor, but the mother may not act on behalf of the minor with the consent of the family council in cases where the father or mother does an act contrary to the interests of the minor, and a special representative must be appointed for the minor pursuant to Article 921 of the Civil Act.

B. The act of conflict of interest under Article 921 of the Civil Code refers to an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between a person with a parental authority and his/her child or among the persons subject to the parental authority due to the objective nature of the act. Whether there is a conflict of interest as a result of the act with a person with parental authority or as a result of the act, shall not be asked, and the agreement on the division of jointly inherited property is an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between heirs due to the objective nature of the act.

C. In a case where an agreement on the division of inherited property is reached between the enemy mother and the minor multiple persons, each special representative must appoint a special representative for each minor and consult on the division of inherited property on behalf of each minor, and if one special representative consults on the division of inherited property on behalf of several minors, this would be in violation of Article 921 of the Civil Code, and the agreement on the division of inherited property formed by such agency act is null and void unless there is ratification by all the representatives.

Article 921 of the Civil Act; Articles 909(2) and 912 of the former Civil Act

A.B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 92Da54524 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1392). Supreme Court Decision 85Meu80 Delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 645) 92Da18481 Delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1143)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Attorneys Kim Tae-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 10 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-type defendant-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na2993 delivered on December 28, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the above land was owned by the deceased, and the non-party 1 and his wife died on November 22, 198, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, who were born by the defendant 1 and his wife, were born out of marriage, and were born by the non-party 1, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, who were born out of marriage in fact with the non-party 2, were the co-inheritors of the deceased's co-ownership of the inherited property. The non-party 5 and the non-party 9, who was the non-party 1 and the non-party 9, should be the non-party 1 and the defendant's co-ownership of the inherited property under the non-party 2's name, the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 9's co-ownership of the above inherited property under the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's co-ownership of the above inherited property.

Even if the mother may perform a legal act on behalf of a minor who is not the father of a parental authority pursuant to Article 909(2) of the former Civil Act, the mother may not act on behalf of the minor, but on behalf of the minor, with the consent of the family council, if the mother commits an act in conflict of interest between the minor, the minor shall not act on behalf of the minor, and pursuant to Article 921 of the Civil Act, the special representative shall be appointed for the minor, and pursuant to Article 921 of the Civil Act, the act in conflict of interest refers to an act in conflict of interest between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, or among the persons subject to parental authority, due to the objective nature of the act in conflict of interest, the intention of the person with parental authority or the result of the act in question is not asked. Thus, since the agreement on the division of jointly inherited property is likely to cause conflict of interest among successors due to the objective nature of the act, if the mother who is a co-inheritors and a minor becomes an inheritor to consult on the division of inherited property between the minor, the special representative shall be appointed on behalf of the minor (see the judgment below.

However, in case where a consultation on the division of inherited property is held between the enemy mother and the minor several persons, each special representative must appoint a special representative for each minor to hold the consultation on the division of inherited property on behalf of each minor, and if one special representative has held the consultation on the division of inherited property on behalf of the minor on behalf of the minor, it is in violation of Article 921 of the Civil Code, and the consultation on the division of inherited property formed by such agency act is null and void unless there is any ratification by all the representatives (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da5424 delivered on April 13, 1993), and in this case where the non-party 51, who is a minor, consulted on the division of inherited property on behalf of all the plaintiffs 2, 3, 3, 3, and 4, etc., the court below held that the agreement on the division of inherited property is valid without confirming the ratification by the representative. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 921 of the Civil Code, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)