Accordingly, on August 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s attorney filed an application for correction of the Plaintiff’s indication as “A and adult guardian B” with “A and adult guardian B,” and the court of first instance declared the Plaintiff’s indication as “A’s adult guardian B” with “A’s lawsuit acceptance.”

The court of first instance seems to have judged that the pleading protocol is "the plaintiff (the plaintiff)" and the interruption of the litigation proceedings premised on the change of party standing was suspended, and that the adult guardian succeeded to the status of the party in the litigation proceedings.

The court prior to the remanded the case: (a) the adult guardian took the procedure as the plaintiff’s legal representative under A’s legal representative’s legal representative as the plaintiff’s legal representative; (b) but, in the indication column of the parties to the judgment, the adult guardian was indicated as “B,” which is the legal representative of “A,” and (c) the adult guardian was entitled to be a party by being separately stated as “A”.

However, the commencement of adult guardianship is a cause for the interruption of litigation procedures without succession to the party, and the adult guardian is merely involved in the procedure by taking over the litigation procedures as a legal representative, and it does not lead to the standing for the party.

The Supreme Court's judgment of remanding was pointed out this point and remanded this case to the trial court.

Therefore, in the trial of the party, the plaintiff's indication is "A" and the plaintiff's adult guardian B is corrected as the plaintiff's legal representative.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had the primary Defendants, N in South and North Korea, N, and his/her ancillary capacity. At present, the Plaintiff was living together with N, South and North Korea.

B. The Plaintiff’s land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).