구상금
1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on August 18, 2014 by the Defendants’ withdrawal of the appeal.
2. After filing an application for designation of the date.
1. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking reimbursement against the Defendants who are the principal debtor and joint and several sureties under each contract for the repair of defects for both Yangsan C and macro-si Apartment Construction. On January 24, 2014, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment accepting all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants on January 24, 2014. The Defendants’ legal representative at the court of the first instance filed an appeal against the Plaintiff on February 17, 2014, but filed an appeal against the Plaintiff at the court of the first instance on August 18, 2014; the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and B submitted a written withdrawal of appeal against the Defendants’ appeal to the court of the first instance on August 18, 2014; and the fact that the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and B submitted a written application to the court of the first instance on August 29, 2014.
2. The defendant company and B's assertion and judgment
A. Defendant Company and B asserted that the withdrawal of an appeal, which was submitted by the party-by-court attorney, is not effective since it was received against the intent of the above Defendants.
B. According to the statement in the letter of delegation of lawsuit by the attorney at the court of a party, the legal representative at the court may recognize the fact that he/she has been delegated with special authority for filing or withdrawing an appeal by the Defendants. Thus, the legal representative at the court shall have the power of attorney for filing and withdrawing
In addition, the expression of intent to withdraw an appeal is an action against the court of the Defendants and an action of litigation cannot be determined on the basis of the indication of intent in the court, unlike the act under general private law (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da11740, Oct. 24, 1997). Thus, even in cases where the expression of intent contains any defect not known from the outside, such as coercion of fraud, even if the declaration of intention contains any defect not known from the outside, it cannot be revoked on the ground of such defect or asserted the invalidity of the objection.
Therefore, the legal representative of the defendants at the trial has withdrawn the appeal lawfully based on the power of attorney delegated by the defendants.