Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Conflicting interests in a partition suit and the court's duty to order cure
Supreme Court, July 11, 2024, 2023Da301941 (judgment)
Case name: 공유물분할[친권자가 수인의 미성년자의 법정대리인으로서 소송행위를 한 경우의 효력이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where several minors and their parent are all parties to an action for partition of co-owned property, must each minor be represented by a separately appointed special representative, and what must the court do when the parent's statutory representation right is defective?
Holding
Yes. An act within Article 921 of the Civil Act is one that, by its objective nature, risks a conflict of interest between the parent and the child or among children under parental authority; the parent's intention and whether a conflict actually arose are irrelevant. A partition procedure carries such a risk by its objective nature, so each minor must act through a special representative, and proceedings taken by the parent in that capacity are void unless the minors lawfully ratify them. Where the parent's representation right is defective, the court must, unless the defect is plainly incurable, set a period and order the parties to cure it, and cure is possible at the appellate stage too.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 수인의 미성년자와 그 친권자가 공유물분할의 소의 당사자가 된 경우에는 미성년자마다 특별대리인을 선임하여 그 특별대리인이 미성년자를 대리하여 소송행위를 하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where multiple minors and their parent holding parental rights become parties to an action for partition of co-owned property, a special representative must be appointed for each minor, and such special representative must perform acts of litigation on behalf of the minor.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
민법 제921조의 이해상반행위란 행위의 객관적 성질상 친권자와 그 자 사이 또는 친권에 복종하는 수인의 자 사이에 이해의 대립이 생길 우려가 있는 행위를 가리키고, 친권자의 의도나 그 행위의 결과 실제로 이해의 대립이 생겼는지의 여부는 묻지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
An act of conflicting interests under Article 921 of the Civil Act refers to an act in which, by the objective nature of the act, there is a risk of a conflict of interest arising between the parent holding parental rights and his or her child, or among multiple children subject to parental rights, and it is not inquired into whether the parent holding parental rights intended such or whether a conflict of interest has actually arisen as a result of the act.
Factors
- 행위의 객관적 성질상 친권자와 그 자 사이 또는 친권에 복종하는 수인의 자 사이에 이해의 대립이 생길 우려가 있는 행위를 가리키고
- 공유물분할에 관한 절차는 그 절차의 객관적 성질상 공유자들 사이에 이해의 대립이 생길 우려가 있다
- 미성년자마다 특별대리인을 선임하여 그 특별대리인이 미성년자를 대리하여 소송행위를 하여야 한다
- 법원은 그 흠을 보정할 수 없음이 명백한 때가 아닌 한 기간을 정하여 보정을 명하여야 할 의무가 있고
- 법정대리권의 보정은 항소심에서도 가능하다
Unofficial English translation
• it refers to an act in which, by the objective nature of the act, there is a risk of a conflict of interest arising between the parent holding parental rights and his or her child, or among multiple children subject to parental rights, and
• in a procedure concerning the partition of co-owned property, there is a risk of a conflict of interest arising among the co-owners, by the objective nature of that procedure
• a special representative must be appointed for each minor, and such special representative must perform acts of litigation on behalf of the minor
• unless it is obvious that such defect cannot be cured, the court must set a period of time and order that it be cured, and
• the defect in the statutory authority of representation may also be cured in the appellate court
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1996. 11. 22. 선고 96다10270 판결(공1997상, 22)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 96Da10270 decided November 22, 1996 (Gong 1997 Sang, 22)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1996. 11. 22. 선고 96다10270 판결(공1997상, 22) / [2] 대법원 2024. 4. 12. 선고 2023다313241 판결(공2024상, 769)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is it decided when a defect in a statutory representative's right of representation is plainly incurable, so that no order to cure need be made?
A later decision addressing when a representation defect becomes plainly incurable, or a decision on whether ratification by the minors had in fact occurred, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 921 of the Civil Act or to Articles 59 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The plaintiff sued for partition of property co-owned by the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendants 7 and 8 are minors, and their parent, Defendant 6, acted for them as their statutory representative throughout the proceedings below. The Seoul Southern District Court, in its judgment of 15 September 2023 (2022Na64479), decided the merits on the premise that Defendant 6 had the statutory representation right to act for the two minors, without appointing special representatives for them.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that Defendant 6's conduct risked a conflict of interest with Defendants 7 and 8, so each minor needed a special representative and the proceedings taken by Defendant 6 were void absent lawful ratification. The court below should have ordered the parties to cure the defect, served the complaint on the special representatives once appointed and let them act for the minors. By deciding the merits without those steps it had misapprehended the law on conflicting-interest acts under Article 921 in a way that affected the judgment, so the judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A partition suit in which a minor and the parent are not both parties, since the special representative requirement rests on their opposing positions in the same proceedings.
- A single minor whose sole statutory representative has no opposing interest, so that no conflict of interest arises by the objective nature of the act.
- A case where the defect in the representation right is plainly incurable, since the court then has no duty to order cure within a period.
Record verification notes
Check the party list first: identify every minor co-owner and whether the same parent appeared for more than one of them, since the rule turns on that overlap. Then look at the record for any order to cure under Articles 59 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act, for the appointment of special representatives and for any ratification by the minors after the proceedings. Confirm as well which instance heard the matter, because cure remains possible even at the appellate stage.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민법 제921조에서 정한 ‘이해상반행위’의 의미 / 수인의 미성년자와 그 친권자가 공유물분할의 소의 당사자가 된 경우, 미성년자마다 특별대리인을 선임하여 그 특별대리인이 미성년자를 대리하여 소송행위를 하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 이때 친권자가 수인의 미성년자의 법정대리인으로서 한 소송행위의 효력(원칙적 무효) [2] 미성년자의 법정대리인에게 법정대리권이 흠결된 경우, 법원이 취하여야 할 조치 및 법정대리권의 보정이 항소심에서도 가능한지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of an 'act of conflicting interests' as defined in Article 921 of the Civil Act / Where multiple minors and their parent holding parental rights become parties to an action for partition of co-owned property, whether a special representative must be appointed for each minor and such special representative must perform acts of litigation on behalf of the minor (affirmative) / In such a case, the effect of the acts of litigation performed by the parent holding parental rights as the legal representative of multiple minors (void in principle) [2] Where the legal representative of a minor has a defect in the statutory authority of representation, the measures the court must take and whether the defect in the statutory authority of representation may be cured in the appellate court as well (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 민법 제921조의 이해상반행위란 행위의 객관적 성질상 친권자와 그 자 사이 또는 친권에 복종하는 수인의 자 사이에 이해의 대립이 생길 우려가 있는 행위를 가리키고, 친권자의 의도나 그 행위의 결과 실제로 이해의 대립이 생겼는지의 여부는 묻지 않는다. 공유물분할에 관한 절차는 그 절차의 객관적 성질상 공유자들 사이에 이해의 대립이 생길 우려가 있다. 따라서 수인의 미성년자와 그 친권자가 공유물분할의 소의 당사자가 된 경우에는 미성년자마다 특별대리인을 선임하여 그 특별대리인이 미성년자를 대리하여 소송행위를 하여야 한다. 만약 친권자가 수인의 미성년자의 법정대리인으로서 소송행위를 하였다면 이는 민법 제921조에 위반되어 미성년자들의 적법한 추인이 없는 한 무효라고 할 것이다. [2] 민사소송법 제59조 전단과 제60조는 소송능력·법정대리권 또는 소송행위에 필요한 권한의 수여에 흠이 있는 경우에는 법원은 기간을 정하여 이를 보정하도록 명하여야 하고, 소송능력·법정대리권 또는 소송행위에 필요한 권한의 수여에 흠이 있는 사람이 소송행위를 한 뒤에 보정된 당사자나 법정대리인이 이를 추인한 경우에는 그 소송행위는 이를 한 때에 소급하여 효력이 생긴다고 규정하고 있다. 그러므로 미성년자의 법정대리인에게 법정대리권이 흠결된 경우 법원은 그 흠을 보정할 수 없음이 명백한 때가 아닌 한 기간을 정하여 보정을 명하여야 할 의무가 있고, 법정대리권의 보정은 항소심에서도 가능하다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제269조 제1항, 제921조 [2] 민사소송법 제51조, 제59조, 제60조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger