[합자회사회복등기,토지소유권보존등기말소등][집13(2)민,142]
In the event that a partner of a limited partnership company acts with the company as a representative of the company, any person who is entitled to do such procedural acts for the company;
Where a limited partnership company member asserts that he/she is the representative of the limited partnership company and carries out a lawsuit against the company as the plaintiff, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 60 and Article 58 of this Act that the court of the lawsuit must act upon appointment of a special representative from the court of the lawsuit and rendered a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit without appointment of a special representative, and that the appeal was dismissed without ex officio examination as to the requirements for the lawsuit in the final appeal.
Articles 58 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act
(1) One person, including a governmental assistance limited partnership
Maximum decoration et al.
Supreme Court Decision 64Da1045 Decided April 27, 1965
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The Seoul High Court Decision 63Na736 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
We examine the second ground for review of the plaintiff, etc., the gist of the second ground for review is that the plaintiff, the first ground for review (the second ground for review) filed a lawsuit against the company by asserting that the plaintiff, the second ground for review (the second ground for review) was the representative member of the government joint venture company of the plaintiff, the second ground for review, and that the representative member of the company brought a lawsuit with the highest ground for appeal, but the above highest ground for appeal is the representative of the above company under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, it is inappropriate to file a lawsuit conducted as the representative of the above highest ground for review, and therefore, it is not possible to avoid the judgment of the Seoul High Court, as well as the Seoul High Court Decision 63Na736, which
In case where a member of a consortium asserts that he is the representative of the limited partnership and performs a lawsuit against the company, the representative of the company is unable to perform the power of representation for the company. Therefore, it is deemed that the special representative is appointed from the court of the lawsuit pursuant to Article 60 and Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In this case, the Seoul High Court Decision 63Na736 delivered on the premise that the lawsuit initiated without the special representative of the Kuyangyang Limited Partnership was lawful, and that the original judgment was dismissed without the ex officio examination on the requirements for the lawsuit, the original judgment does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the original judgment. Since the debate on this point is well-grounded, the decision on other arguments can not be dismissed without the prior examination of the judgment. Accordingly, the Seoul High Court Decision 425, 404, and 406 is reversed and remanded to the said court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)