The defects of the power of attorney in the first instance court and implied ratification by the appellate court's attorney;

In a case where an attorney who has no authority to represent a clan filed a lawsuit by a person who has been delegated the power to represent a clan, and the appellate court stated a correction of the indication of a party to correct the representative of the clan after being delegated the power to represent the clan again from the legitimate representative of the clan, and continued to conduct the lawsuit as the representative of the clan, the litigation conducted before as the legal representative of the

Article 88 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2813 decided Mar. 30, 1971 (Gong1988, 1474) 80Da2534 decided Jul. 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 14255) (Gong1988, 1474)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant

Defendant 1 and Defendant Defendant Defendant Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na13450 delivered on January 22, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 by Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s grounds of appeal (the grounds of supplementary appeal stated in the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal are examined to

The judgment of the court below on the facts pointed out by the theory of lawsuit is just and acceptable in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law that erroneously recognized facts in violation of the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the legal principles as to disposal documents, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc. In the end, the judgment of the court below is nothing more than misunderstanding the determination of evidence belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction and the recognition of facts

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the facts duly established by the court below, it is clear that the original family of the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit of this case is the deceased non-party 1 who was the representative of the plaintiff clan from among the descendants who were the deceased non-party 1 who was the deceased non-party 1 as a joint ancestor at the time of the clan, and according to the records, the non-party 2 is the representative of the plaintiff clan lawfully elected, and according to the records, the attorney Lee Jong-soo who was delegated the power of attorney from the non-party 3 as the representative of the plaintiff clan was conducting the lawsuit of this case, and the above attorney was delegated the power of attorney again from the non-party 2 who was the legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan to the non-party 2, and the defendant stated the correction of the party indication which corrected the representative of the plaintiff clan to the non-party 2, and the lawsuit was continuously conducted as the legal representative of the plaintiff clan. Thus, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confirmation of the parties' modification or ratification of the legal principles.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)