2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning for the judgment of this court concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of September 4, 201, "as of September 1, 201," "as of September 1, 201" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment is as of September 1, 201, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's main defense, such as Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is cited in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's main defense

Since the Plaintiff died on June 18, 2012, and his inheritor refused to take over the instant lawsuit while filing a declaration of renunciation of inheritance, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition, as there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition

B. Determination

(1) Where there is an attorney pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 95 subparag. 1 and 238 of the Civil Procedure Act, even if the parties die, the litigation proceedings shall not be interrupted and the attorney’s power of attorney shall not be extinguished. At this time, the deceased’s attorney is treated as the inheritor’s attorney, as a matter of law, without the need to obtain new authorization from the inheritor, due to his/her ex officio succession to the status of the parties, and thus, he/she conducts a lawsuit for all of the inheritors. In cases where the parties died, but the litigation proceedings are not interrupted due to the death of the parties, even if the parties died and the litigation proceedings are not interrupted, the judgment is effective against all the inheritors who have succeeded to the status of the deceased (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da103048, Apr. 28, 2011).

(2) In the instant case, when comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 5, around June 2012, the Plaintiff delegated the Plaintiff’s legal representative to the Plaintiff’s legal representative regarding the instant appellate lawsuit, and then died on the 18th day of that month during which the appellate lawsuit was pending, and the Plaintiff’s spouse, lineal descendant, sibling, etc. were relatives, such as the Plaintiff’s spouse Park Ga and A KimB, but the Plaintiff’s lineal descendants, such as the Plaintiff’s spouse Park Jong and A KimB, filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance with the Daegu Family Court and filed the report on the acceptance thereof.

As can be seen, although the Plaintiff died of the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit, the litigation procedure of this case is not interrupted, and the attorney’s power of attorney is not extinguished. The Plaintiff’s attorney is naturally treated as the attorney of the Plaintiff’s heir, and thus, he/she conducts the lawsuit on behalf of all inheritors. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s spouse and lineal descendant renounces inheritance and refuse the instant lawsuit taking place, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff renounced inheritance to the brothers and sisters and collateral blood relatives within the fourth degree of relationship, and there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim of this case is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.