[소유권이전등기][공1983.3.1.(699),351]
Scope of authority of an acting director appointed by a provisional disposition
In a case where the provisional disposition court suspends the execution of the duties of the clan by the method of provisional disposition determining the temporary status of the provisional disposition and simultaneously appoints the acting person, the scope of the authority of the acting person may be restricted necessary for the accomplishment of the provisional disposition with respect to the scope of the authority of the provisional disposition. However, as long as the provisional disposition court appoints the final representative and does not specifically limit the scope of his authority, the scope of his authority is the same as that of the designated person, so it cannot be said that the final appointment of the inspector belonging to the final order is void merely because the chief of the inspection does not belong to the ordinary affairs
Articles 714 and 719 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1085 Decided December 14, 1982
[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellee] Jind Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 81Na2454 delivered on November 10, 1981
The judgment below is reversed;
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
On April 25, 1978, Nonparty 1 as the defendant's representative appointed Nonparty 2 as the defendant's attorney in the case of claim for ownership transfer registration No. 78Gahap1407 filed by the plaintiff, and Nonparty 2 established settlement in the lawsuit of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff as the defendant's representative, and acknowledged on April 8, 1978 that Nonparty 3, appointed as the defendant's closing agent by the court's provisional disposition order, dismissed the above non-party 1 from being known to the defendant's office on April 8, 1978, and the provisional disposition of suspension of execution of duties and appointment of the acting representative's representative's representative's provisional disposition is a provisional disposition which establishes a provisional legal state to maintain the present situation until the dispute is settled by the court's original decision, and it is reasonable to dismiss the non-party 2's dismissal of the defendant's closing agent's appointment and dismissal under the premise that it would not have any effect in this case's dismissal under the defendant's provisional disposition of this case.
However, Article 719(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court of provisional disposition shall determine the necessary disposition to achieve the purpose of the application ex officio. Thus, in the case where the court of provisional disposition suspends the execution of the final order by the method of provisional disposition by which the provisional status is determined and simultaneously appoints the acting person, the scope of the authority of the acting person may be restricted as to the scope of the authority of the provisional disposition. However, as long as the court of provisional disposition does not limit the scope of the authority of the acting person when appointing the final order acting person, the scope of the authority shall be deemed the same as that of the acting person (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1085 delivered on December 14, 198
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that it is null and void to dismiss the non-party 1 as the chief executive officer of the Korea-U.S. Cho Jong-sung from the position of chief executive officer for the reason that the well-known dismissal under Section 2 of the Religious Order does not belong to the ordinary business affairs of the Religious Order, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the authority of the acting executive officer in a provisional disposition under Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act,
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)