[소유권이전증기말소청구사건][하집1986(2),172]
The period allowed for filing a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation due to a defect in special authorization;
Where a party conducts litigation without obtaining a special authorization, a lawsuit for quasi-adjudication on the grounds of defects in a special authorization, unlike the case where a person who has no power of attorney has conducted a litigation without obtaining a special authorization, shall be brought within 30 days from the date when the party becomes aware of the grounds for quasi-adjudication after the settlement of
Articles 426, 427, and 431 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 67Da2117 decided Apr. 30, 1968 (Article 25(14) of the Civil Act, Article 25(14)31 of the Civil Act, Article 1161 of the Civil Act, Article 161 of the Civil Act, Article 80Da584 decided Dec. 9, 1980 (Article 42(1)(22)(2)756 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 649-13456 of the Civil Procedure Act)
Park Byung-sil
A clan of the Dam Mack-Jin Park
Seoul Central District Court (85Hun-Ba14) in the first instance trial
1. This appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.
The judicial compromise entered in the protocol of conciliation on June 24, 1982, which was filed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and entered in the protocol of conciliation on the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, No. 82 Mahap65, Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) shall be revoked.
Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.
1. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to file a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration with the Seoul Special District Court 82Gahap65, and the plaintiff between the plaintiff and the defendant (1) during the proceeding, the representative of the defendant defendant is recognized for the violation of modern trust. (2) The defendant defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's 30.
2. However, the defendant filed a suit against the above plaintiff for a new registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate with the Seoul District Court 79 Gohap694. Since such a ruling became final and conclusive around that time, it goes against the res judicata of the above 79 Gohap6894 and thus, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act as to each of the above real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 962, each of the following facts that the above real estate was owned by the defendant's non-party 6's non-party 8's original registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate. The defendant's new registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate was not stated in the separate sheet No. 97, which was non-party 6's original registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate, for the reasons that the above real estate was non-party 6's original registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
Second, since the settlement of this case was conducted without obtaining special authorization on the settlement from the 2nd of the defendant, the settlement of this case constitutes a lack of authorization necessary for conducting the procedural acts, the settlement of this case constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, if the representative or administrator of an unincorporated association such as the defendant's race has the capacity to conduct procedural acts equivalent to the representative of the juristic person. However, in the case of the withdrawal of the lawsuit, settlement, or the appellant's abortion, the special authorization of clan 9 is required as corresponding to the legal representative (Article 60, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act). According to Gap evidence 1-1, the settlement of this case cannot be acknowledged as having been conducted without obtaining a resolution of the 9th of the above 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 4th of the 5th of the 2nd of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3rd.
Third, the settlement of this case was made by the plaintiff on behalf of the above decoration private teaching institute without obtaining the power of representation from the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party school foundation. Thus, although the plaintiff asserts that there is a defect in the power of representation, it is not a representative of the above school foundation, but the plaintiff's identity became a party in the settlement of this case. Thus, the above argument of the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff made the settlement in this case as the representative of the above school foundation is groundless.
Fourth, even if all of the above arguments are groundless, the defendant did not receive the original copy of the conciliation protocol of this case, so there is a ground to review the conciliation of this case, but the reason that the defendant did not receive the original copy of the conciliation protocol of this case does not constitute a ground for quasi-examination, and the records of this case No. 82Ahap65, which is subject to quasi-examination of this case, can be recognized that the defendant received the original copy of the conciliation of this case on July 5, 19
3. If so, the defendant's lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below which is the same conclusion shall be dismissed as the defendant's appeal is just and without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)