[부동산소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1948민,471]
Effect of withdrawal of action where police officers have affixed or sealed any document by force.
If police officers have affixed a seal on the withdrawal of a lawsuit without knowledge of the police officer's strong pressure, it is an invalid litigation as a document written without being affixed to the plaintiff's intent of the establishment of the lawsuit.
Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul District Court of the first instance (Law No. 4292 inhabitants 1106)
This case is dismissed.
Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant (appellant) representative shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's total cost of the lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff (appellant) representative is sought a judgment in the same place of the disposition.
당사자 쌍방의 사실상의 진술요지는 원고대리인이 당심에서 단기 4293.5.9.자로 기일지정 신립을 하고 동 신립사유로서 원고는 본건 소를 취하한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 소취하가 되어 있는 것은 본건 소송진행중 피고가 원고를 상대로 영등포경찰서에 형사고소를 제기하여 동 서 수사계 형사 소외 1이 원고 가에 와서 임의동행을 구하여 동 서에 출두한 바 형사는 하고로 집을 팔고도 소외 2에게 돈을 먹고 소송을 하는가 유치장에 들어가야 아는가하고 고함을 치며 원고를 질책하므로 원고는 이것은 시모가 주관하는 것이기 때문에 잘 모른다고 답하자 그렇다면 모두 구속한다고 하며 여기다가 인장을 찍으면 재차 경찰서에 부르지도 않고 만사를 잘 해결해 준다 하면서 문자가 기재되어 있는 양면쾌지를 제시하므로 원고는 구속하겠다는데 위협을 느껴 동 서류가 뭣인지도 모르고 동 서류중에 소외 1 형사가 날인하라는 부분에 날인하였더니 소외 1 형사는 다시 원고의 인장을 가지고 미농지에 기재한 서류에 날인하고 원고에 반환하면서 해결이 잘 되었다고 하여 귀가하였던 바 기 이후를 알고 보니 동 서류등은 본건 소송취하서 및 또한 원고가 소송을 위임한 사실이 없다는 서류임을 지실하게 되었음. 연이나 원고는 무지 무식한 자로서 동 문서가 뭔지도 모르고 날인한 것으로서 강박에 의한 것이므로 무효인 것이라고 진술하고 피고 대리인은 우 원고주장 사실을 부인하는 이외에는 각 원판결 적시와 동일하므로 자이 이를 인용한다.
The method of proof is that the plaintiff's agent seeks to examine the non-party 3 and the plaintiff's identity in the party trial, and the evidence No. 1 is recognized, and the defendant's agent submits the evidence No. 1 and seeks to examine the non-party 1 and the non-party 4, which is the same as that of each original judgment.
First of all, in light of the contents of Non-Party 3's testimony as to the establishment of the date fixed by the plaintiff, and the whole purport of the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff was left in response to Non-Party 1's withdrawal on March 4, 4293, and the non-party 1 left the Yeongdeungpo Police Station's presence on March 4, 4293, and he did not affix his seal to the plaintiff at a large interest rate on the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff's seal is unwritten, it can be recognized that the plaintiff was unaware of any document, as instructed by Non-Party 1, and that the plaintiff did not affix his seal to the document, as instructed by Non-Party 1, and that the non-party 1's testimony in conflict with the above recognition is not taken, and it is hard to repeat this.
Thus, the plaintiff's act of litigation is invalid as it was written without being based on the plaintiff's intention to bring this case, and the plaintiff's act of litigation is well-grounded. The plaintiff's act of litigation is well-grounded. The ground for the judgment of an arbitr member on the merits is the same as that on the original judgment, and therefore,
In other words, the judgment of the court below which cited the plaintiff's main claim is reasonable, and the defendant's main lawsuit is unreasonable, so it is decided with the order by applying Articles 384, 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges Hong Il-won (Presiding Judge) Kim Hwang-soon