Whether there is any defect in the legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authorization required for the litigation by a representative, the other party may serve as a ground for retrial.

If there is any defect in the authority of legal representation, the authority of attorney, or the authority of attorney required for conducting the procedural acts, it may be considered as a cause for a retrial in the party who has a defect in such authority of attorney, as well as in the other party who can receive benefits by asserting such a cause, it may be considered as a cause for a retrial.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2569 Decided February 28, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15Da2569 Decided 1051, Supreme Court Decision 105Da1019 Decided February 28, 196)

Japan Real Estate Construction Corporation

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (64Hung21) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The case is remanded to the Seoul Civil District Court.

The attorney of the defendant (the plaintiff-appellant) shall revoke the judgment subject to the review of this case.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

The defendant (the plaintiff)'s attorney has the same judgment as the disposition.

On April 21, 1964, the plaintiff company filed a lawsuit against the defendant with the court below 62Da2440 on the part of the non-party 1 as representative director, claiming the implementation of the procedure for transfer registration of ownership based on sale and purchase of the real estate stated in the separate sheet, and on September 30, 1943, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered on December 11, 1962, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 1, 1963, there is no dispute between the parties, and in light of the whole purport of the statement in Eul No. 1 (written judgment) and oral argument, the real estate stated in the above separate sheet was owned by the non-party 1, Japan before August 15, 194, but it was concluded a sales contract on the same day with the plaintiff company to purchase from the above non-party on the same day and paid the down payment to the court below for sale and purchase of the above real estate under the name of the plaintiff's claim for transfer registration for the above reasons.

However, the first reason why the defendant and the intervenor joining the defendant are liable for the retrial of the above final judgment is as follows.

In other words, as a domestic legal entity established on April 10, 1940, at the time of incorporation, both shareholders of the company were Japan at the time of 8/15 year. Thus, the whole shares were reverted to the country after 8/15 year old. Nevertheless, on February 15, 1960, the non-party 2, who was employed by the plaintiff company before 8/15 year old, proposed that several shareholders were acquired shares from the Japanese shareholder at the time of 8/15 year old, and that the non-party 3 had acquired shares from the Japanese shareholder at the time of 8/15 year old, the non-party 3 forged relevant documents, such as the minutes of the shareholders' general meeting that the representative director, the non-party 2, and the non-party 5 were appointed as each director, and then the non-party 1, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7 had no authority to file a new lawsuit or the non-party 1, the non-party 3 had no authority to file a new shareholders' meeting.

Therefore, in light of Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, when there is a defect in the right of legal representation, powers of attorney, or authorization necessary to conduct procedural acts, the grounds for retrial are one of the grounds for retrial. The purport of this Act is not only to the purport that the party whose power of attorney is defective may use this as the grounds for retrial, but also to the other party in this case, as it can be inferred by the above facts, it is reasonable to regard this as the grounds for retrial in the case where the other party can benefit by asserting the above facts as the above facts. However, the court below held that the other party in this regard cannot request a retrial on the ground that the other party in this regard has a defect of power of attorney, and dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit for retrial on the ground that it is unlawful, and this is not erroneous, and thus this is not erroneous, and this decision is revoked under Article 388 of the Civil Procedure Act and remanded this case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)