[가처분이의][공1995.4.1.(989),1465]
Where an attorney has submitted a resignation document to the court but has not notified the other party of such fact, whether his/her power of attorney exists or not.
Even if an attorney has submitted a resignation document to the court, the power of attorney of the agent still remains in order to ensure stability and clarity of the litigation procedure, unless the other party has notified of such fact.
Articles 88 and 59(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Da1593 delivered on September 29, 1970 (No. 18 third citizen1)
Attorney Cho Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Respondent
Seoul High Court Decision 94Na6743 delivered on September 6, 1994
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
On the first ground for appeal
The issue is that, while inducing the respondent to submit a resignation system to the applicant's representative, the respondent is promising the applicant to directly contact the applicant and proceed without contact with the respondent, and the applicant and his representative are absent on the date for pleading twice as in the original adjudication. The respondent's representative did not attend the relevant date and present on the date for pleading and thus the lawsuit in this case is null and void in violation of the new rules. However, according to the records, the defendant's legal representative's testimony is rejected as to the fact that the respondent's legal representative submitted a resignation letter at the request of the respondent, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the court below's measure of evidence preparation is just, and it is not necessary to look at the above issue, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
As to the second and third points
Even if an attorney submitted a letter of resignation to the court, the representative's authority still exists in order to secure stability and clearness of the proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da1593 delivered on September 29, 1970). Thus, evidence that the court below notified the respondent of the fact of submitting the letter of resignation by the applicant in the applicant's attorney on the ground of the applicant's legal representative, other than the witness 1 who is not believed by the court below, is justified in the above measure that the summons on July 9, 1993 to the applicant's legal representative on the date of pleading is legitimate, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.
In addition, the court below's decision that the writ of summons of July 9, 1993 was delivered to the applicant's attorney at around 13:15 on June 29, 1993, while the resignation was delivered to the applicant's attorney at around 13:30 on the same day as the next day, and that the witness 1's testimony against it is not trusted and there is no other evidence to reverse it. Thus, the part of the court below's decision that the writ of summons of July 9, 1993 was delivered lawfully shall be justified in the records, and the fact-finding shall be justified and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and so long as the respondent did not notify the applicant's attorney that the power of attorney of the applicant has expired, the judgment of the court below as seen above is just, and therefore there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the supplementary part, and therefore there is no violation of the rules of evidence.
This part of the issue is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)