[점유권확인등][집23(2)민,102;공1975.8.1.(517),8514]
Where an acting representative director of a company pursuant to a decision of provisional disposition has accepted and accepted the claim of the other party on the date of pleading without permission of the court
Unless otherwise provided in the provisional disposition, the representative director of a company by the court's decision of provisional disposition may not perform any act that does not belong to the regular business of the company without the permission of the court, and if the claim of the other party is accepted on behalf of the company on the date of pleading without the permission of the court, it constitutes grounds for retrial where there is lack of special authorization necessary for conducting procedural acts under Article 422 (1) 3
5,6 construction section merchants' associations' association, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Long-Term Industry Corporation
Daegu High Court Decision 74Na352 delivered on December 18, 1974
The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The first ground for appeal by the defendant (the plaintiff on review) is examined.
On December 10, 1969, the case where the court below confirmed that the representative director of the defendant company who was appointed by the court's provisional disposition order was present at the date of pleading on December 10, 1969, and that the representative director of the company pursuant to the court's provisional disposition order did not belong to the regular business of the company without permission unless otherwise stipulated in the provisional disposition order. Since the above representative director of the company pursuant to the court's provisional disposition order who was appointed by the defendant company as the representative director of the defendant company did not seem to have been otherwise stipulated in the provisional disposition order of this case where the above representative director of the defendant company was appointed as the representative director of the defendant company, if the above non-party without permission of the court of the above non-party acknowledged the representative director of the plaintiff company as above on behalf of the defendant company without obtaining special authorization on the right to use the plaintiff company, such act constitutes a lack of authority to represent the defendant company under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above act constitutes a ground for retrial of the defendant company's.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
The court below affirmed that the reason that the above non-party was defective in the special authorization necessary for the above procedural acts is that he was aware of the fact when he was recognized as the representative director of the defendant company or the acting representative director, and that the period for filing a new trial should be calculated within 30 days from this time. According to the records, the above non-party was found to have received a non-prosecution disposition due to a non-prosecution disposition due to a suspicion of breach of trust, and there is no reason to discuss.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)