Powers of Special Representatives

In this case, the special representative appointed as the representative of a juristic person pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this Article is the so-called legal representative who can conduct the litigation benefiting the juristic person as the principal's interest in the appointed lawsuit, so the representative's authority may be ratified in the lawsuit subject to review.

Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Act

Han Real Estate Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hong Hong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff Intervenor 1 and 44 others

Korea

Defendant Intervenor 1 and five others (Attorney Shin-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1760 delivered on March 7, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

Among the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor (1)-(4) and the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor (1) are also examined.

(1) As to each of the first points, the special representative appointed as the representative of a legal entity under Article 58(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is in the position of so-called legal representative who is able to perform all acts beneficial to the legal entity as the principal in respect of the appointed lawsuit. In the final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Civil Court Decision 62Da2440 delivered on December 11, 1962) which is the object of review in this case, the ○○○○ who was the representative of the Plaintiff company as the representative of the legal entity at the time of the final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Civil Court Decision 62Da2440 delivered on December 11, 1962) cannot become a legitimate representative director, and therefore, even if the power of representation is defective, it would be necessary that the special representative of the Plaintiff company appointed in this lawsuit would be benefiting the interest of the Plaintiff company as

The issue is that the above special representative is appointed to carry out the litigation of this case, and therefore the authority of the representative of the plaintiff company has no authority to confirm the defects in the power of representation in the litigation which is subject to review due to its nature, and that such authority only affects only the litigation after the appointment is made. The judgment of the court below which held as the purport of the same purport as the party member is just and this cannot be said to be contrary to the judgment expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the remanded case. Even though the former shares of the plaintiff company are attributed to the State, the above special representative is not deemed to have been an island of the state as the principal, but shall be deemed to be the principal of the plaintiff company. Even if the ratification of the former shares of the plaintiff company is contrary to the principal's intent, the effect of ratification shall be deemed to be effective externally. Even if the representative director of the plaintiff company could not confirm the defects in the power of representation due to the special representative's execution of the lawsuit of this case. In the above case, even if the original shares of the plaintiff company belong to all the original shares of the plaintiff company, the special representative cannot be deemed to be justified and void.

(2) As to the second ground for appeal, the lower court erred by the Defendant in this case.

With respect to the time when the defendant can be deemed to have known of the grounds under Article 422(1)6, 7, and 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which serve as the grounds for the judgment, the defendant should be deemed to have known of the fact at latest until February 29, 1964. Examining the process of documentary evidence based on the premise to recognize such facts, the court below is justifiable, and the process of documentary evidence cannot be said to be illegal as alleged in the facts alleged in the facts alleged in the court below, without any reasonable ground, it merely criticizes the process of fact-finding by the court below as alleged in the arguments. There is no illegality in the incomplete hearing.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

The defendant assistant intervenor 5 does not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal within the prescribed period.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet