A. The case where it was determined that there was no omission of judgment

(b) In the case of a co-litigation under Article 76 of the Civil Procedure Act, an intervenor’s attorney may become an intervenor at the same time.

In case where an unincorporated association or foundation does not exist, or is unable to exercise, its representative, and it is required to conduct procedural acts as an unincorporated association, the interested person may apply to the court of the lawsuit for the appointment of a special representative.

Articles 82 and 76 of the Civil Procedure Act

The Southern Women's School Maintenance Foundation

The Foundation of the United States, the Doctrine of North Korea, and two others, including the Maintenance Foundation of the Organization.

Supreme Court

The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.

Expenses for reexamination shall be borne by the plaintiff for reexamination.

In the judgment on the party members of the previous suit (case 62Da144), in the judgment on the third ground of appeal, it is evident that the court below rejected defenses under the premise that each of the provisions of the present settlement contract is not related to the simultaneous performance or close relation and that there is no relation with the defendant. The purport of the judgment of the court below is based on the premise that there is no ground for cancellation of the argument, and therefore, this issue is groundless, and in the previous suit, where each of the provisions of the present settlement contract is not related to the withdrawal of the lawsuit, as recognized by the court below, it cannot be denied the obligation of the plaintiff to transfer real estate ownership of this case which is not related to the above provision, and the new suit cannot be extinguished by the removal of the obligation under the provisions not related to the above provision. Accordingly, the judgment of the previous suit does not affect the judgment as to the party members, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no ground for delegation of compulsory execution between the intervenor and the intervenor's joint acceptance of the lawsuit and the intervenor's defense of this case.

According to the records of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' full completion of the lawsuit was concluded with the defendant foundation in the previous lawsuit on May 7, 1954, and the plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration of ownership to one other than the defendant foundation in the previous lawsuit and the return of delivery price securities was filed with the plaintiff foundation in the previous lawsuit to the maintenance foundation in the previous lawsuit and the defendant in the previous lawsuit to the maintenance foundation in the previous lawsuit upon delegation of the lawsuit from the maintenance foundation in the previous lawsuit to the defendant foundation in the previous lawsuit and to deliver the ownership transfer registration procedure in the previous lawsuit to the plaintiff foundation in the previous lawsuit to the plaintiff foundation in the previous lawsuit as to the plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration of ownership in the previous lawsuit to the plaintiff's previous lawsuit and the new defendant in the previous lawsuit to the plaintiff's previous lawsuit to the effect that the plaintiff's new lawsuit was not completed by the new litigation foundation in the previous lawsuit to the plaintiff's new lawsuit and the plaintiff's new lawsuit to the plaintiff's new lawsuit to the plaintiff's new lawsuit to the plaintiff's 1 and the plaintiff's new lawsuit to the plaintiff's new lawsuit to the plaintiff's new plaintiff's new lawsuit.

Therefore, this case's lawsuit is all without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Articles 425, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man