Whether or not the wife has the right to dispose of the property owned by the absentee

Among the absence of the division, the wife has no authority to make a decision that the management of the property owned by the father may be effective.

Article 697 of the Civil Act

Attorney Kim Yong-ju et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 other (Attorney Lee Jae-cheon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Busan District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 52 civilian 80 delivered on July 30, 1952

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 is erroneous in interpreting and applying the law. The defendant's defense in the original judgment is obviously contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, and it is not erroneous in the original judgment to adopt the defense. It is a legal act of a woman in the wife even after August 15, since it is a legislative act that completely recognizes the ability of women to do so, it is no longer necessary to permit the division. It is the fact that the law is a legal act of a woman in which there is no reason to protect the defendant, so long as the law has been extinguished, it is so long as it is so long as the defendant's leap son was missing, it is so long as the defendant's leap son's right to do so has been destroyed and sold to the defendant's new house because it is so long as it is so long as the leap son's old leap son's old leap son's old leap son's right to do so.

However, according to the original judgment, the first instance court's decision, and the records, as to the plaintiff alleged that the defendant purchased the real estate in this case owned by the defendant 1850,000 won in the price on January 2, 4284, which was short-term Kim Jong-soo, the defendant was missing from the sea wave at a five-year grace period, and so long, the defendant's wife Kim Jong-soo was still missing at a five-year grace period until now, and sold the real estate in this case as the plaintiff's main owner with his wife's name collected the same name without his authority, so that the plaintiff's act of selling the real estate was invalid and purchased by the plaintiff's main owner. The plaintiff's main defense against this was that the plaintiff had been no longer than five years since he had been missing, but he asserted that the plaintiff was acting as an agent even if the defendant was missing, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's act of selling the real estate in this case and the defendant's non-performance of authority as the plaintiff's allegation that it did not have been legitimate.

Although the above ground of appeal No. 2 is not that of domestic affairs, as to the fact that the denied Kim Jong-do was missing in five years prior to his being missing, that is, the fact that he performed the administration body of Dong, that is, he performed a large number of administrative affairs under the name of Man-do or defendant Man-do, it is obvious by each witness's testimony, and thus, he is at least the denied Kim Jong-do as an office manager (civil law). Thus, in this case where the contract for the sale of the main house to the plaintiff Man-do to the plaintiff Man-do, unless there is any special reason contrary to the good manager's duty when the contract for the sale of the main house to the plaintiff Man-do, it is clear that it is unlawful to interpret this opposing opinion even though the original judgment is completely valid.

However, it is related to the factual issues of the theory of lawsuit management. In other words, it is necessary to argue that Kim Dop is not in existence of the legal obligation of the Dong for the management of affairs with respect to the specific contents and scope of the management affairs for the sake of the defendant's prostitution, the specific needs for the disposal of the real estate in this case, and the specific facts that the real estate disposition in this case did not violate the will of the defendant's happiness. However, if the real estate disposition is circulated through the original judgment and the judgment of the first instance and the records of the first instance, there is no punishment to recognize the specific facts that were submitted to the original judgment, and such facts are obvious that they are not ex officio investigation in light of their own, and therefore, it is difficult to find that it was attributable to the final appeal seeking a decision of the Supreme Court by asserting the new facts which

This ground of appeal No. 3 is that even after August 15, 2000, the missing person actually becomes missing after the 6.25 Incident, and if misunderstandings only the simple form theory which has been used in the Japanese colonial era without deep examination of the reality itself currently facing us, our society's ethics and legal order will cause a big confusion. If misunderstandings are based only on a simple form theory as to the facts like this case, and the judgment like the original judgment has been issued, it will be considered only as favorable to her own interest due to the change of circumstances, and if it comes most favorable to her own interest, it will result in the outcome of winning the judgment such as the original judgment. Accordingly, it would be clear that our family and legal order will not be affected by the big confusion, and if it will not always cause the other party's economic confusion.

However, there is no special provision in the Civil Code regarding the management and other disposal of property of an absentee or missing person, and therefore there is no damage or confusion depending on the said provision. It is also necessary to make sure that the local highway in the legal order of a rule of law is in compliance only with the law. In the end, it is unreasonable to conclude that it is based on the premise that it is not the existence of such existing law. As such, all arguments are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 401, Article 89, Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)