Cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessary co-litigation;

In a lawsuit as to the right belonging to partnership property, only the fact that all other union members entrusted the collection of the claim to the plaintiff, cannot be deemed to have caused the title to the lawsuit on the sole ground of the plaintiff's sole name, and the lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff's sole name was brought in the lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff's sole name of the non-corporate body Gap is a question as to whether the plaintiff is a non-corporate body Gap's representative's qualification. Thus, the court below stated this point and ordered the plaintiff to indicate the party in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and if not, the lawsuit on the ground that the lawsuit on the ground that it belongs to the necessary co-litigation, and thus, the lawsuit on the ground that

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na708 delivered on September 28, 1966, Decision 65Na708 delivered on September 28, 1966

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's attorney's two grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the court below's decision, this case's claim is the property of the above association because it claims of the union with special printing company across the country with the plaintiff, non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, and non-party 4 as its members. Therefore, this claim belongs to the above five union members including the plaintiff. In a lawsuit as to the rights belonging to the union's property, the fact that all other union members entrusted the collection of the claim to the plaintiff, it cannot be viewed that the right to file a lawsuit under the plaintiff's sole name has been established. The plaintiff's lawsuit as to this case's sole name can not be viewed as having been brought in the plaintiff's lawsuit. The plaintiff's lawsuit as to this case's lawsuit is ultimately a non-corporate association's intention, which does not belong to the plaintiff's representative's qualification. However, the court below should notify this point so that the party who conforms to the substantive legal relationship can be indicated as the plaintiff, and unless otherwise, it belongs to the requisite co-litigation, and the court below's decision is reversed or dismissed.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman