[소유권이전등기(본소),소유권보존등기말소등(참가소)][집13(2)민,312]
Cases of an error of incomplete deliberation by misunderstanding the legal principles on the completion of procedural acts;
If, at the time of the Korean War, the Defendant received a favorable judgment against the Defendant by means of public notice on the ground that his last address was unknown at the time of the Korean War, and the final appeal period, which is the peremptory period, has expired, then the Defendant’s administrator was appointed as the Defendant’s administrator, even if he was appointed after the lapse of the appeal period, he/she may subsequently complete the appeal, which is a procedural act neglected on behalf of the Defendant
Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act
Hank-ray
Absentee Resources
Thailand
Seoul High Court Decision 64Na884-1, 884-2 delivered on July 9, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na884-2
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.
Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1 and the ground of appeal No. 2 by Defendant 1’s Intervenor
The judgment of the court below was rendered at the time of June 25 incident, and the defendant had no dispute between the parties as to the facts which became final and conclusive on November 21, 1964, after leaving the last address at the time of the Korean War, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the defendant, and served all the documents of the lawsuit to the defendant by public notice to the court of first instance on November 25, 1964, and no dispute exists between the parties. Since the defendant's legal representative failed to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff's liability, since the defendant's legal representative was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the defendant's legal representative, the administrator of the defendant's legal representative was aware at the time of the above judgment, and argued that the defendant's legal representative was appointed as the administrator of the defendant's legal representative within two weeks after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, the defendant's request for appeal was dismissed as well as the defendant's appeal dismissed.
However, even if the appeal period of the defendant, which is the peremptory period, has expired, if the defendant could not comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, the defendant can subsequently complete the procedural acts neglected within two weeks after the cause is terminated. Thus, even if the defendant's administrator was appointed after the expiration of the appeal period, the administrator may subsequently complete the procedural acts neglected by proxy the defendant within two weeks after the date on which the administrator becomes aware of the fact that the original judgment was served by public notice. Therefore, the judgment below, as seen above, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the subsequent completion of the procedural acts, and did not exhaust all necessary deliberation, on the premise that the defendant's appeal is unlawful, and this affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the party's application for intervention, on the premise that the defendant's main appeal is dismissed, and the remaining judgment of the grounds for appeal is reversed without being reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices in the collegiate division of the Seoul Civil Court.
Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro