1. Where documents are delivered by a person who does not fall under Article 171 of the former Civil Procedure Act, whether it is subject to restrictions on re-adjudications;

2. In cases where a person has a certificate of seal impression and registration documents of the wife of an internal combustion-resistant relationship with each other or a sex of expression agency;

1. A person stipulated in Article 171 of the former Civil Procedure Act is a kind of legal representative in the delivery of acceptance, so if there is a person unrelated to the prescribed provision, it would be deemed that there was a defect in the legal representation right since it was an act by a person without the power of representation. Therefore, it shall not be subject to the limitation of the time limit stipulated in Article 424 of the same Act by Article 42

2. If the addition of internal combustion has a certificate of the seal impression and registration documents of the wife of internal combustion after the end of the duration of the relationship of internal combustion, it cannot be said that there exists any justifiable reason to believe that the person has the right of representation.

Articles 171, 424, and 425 of the former Civil Procedure Act; Articles 109 and 110 of the former Civil Act

Reopening Plaintiff

Defendant’s retrial

The original judgment shall be altered in parallel with each other.

The judgment of the case of the claim for the continuous performance of ownership transfer registration No. 5 of the support year rendered on November 7, 279 in the short-term 4279 in the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court shall be revoked.

The claim by the defendant for retrial shall be dismissed.

Part of the claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of the re-Appellant shall be dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the defendant for retrial.

The original judgment is revoked. The plaintiff's claim for retrial shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's claim for retrial shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's claim for retrial shall be assessed against the plaintiff for retrial, and the plaintiff's plaintiff for retrial shall be dismissed.

The actual statement of both parties is a ground for retrial. Since the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the execution of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the 4th anniversary of the fact that he/she sold the 4th anniversary of the date of new trial, the court below's ruling became final and conclusive on November 7, 199 by rendering a judgment in favor of the defendant on the 4th anniversary of the fact that the 4th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the issuance of the 4th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 1st new trial, the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 4th new trial.

Even if the Defendant filed a claim for new trial against the Nonparty for the registration of ownership transfer, and such new trial was conducted on June 18, 279, which was the date of the first instance trial, on which the Nonparty 1 had no right to request new trial. On the 3rd anniversary of the fact that the Nonparty 2 had no right to request new trial, the first instance court’s new trial was conducted on October 10, which was the date of the third oral pleading and that the Nonparty 2 would have received the said right to request new trial, and the subsequent trial was conducted on the 4th anniversary of the fact that the Nonparty had no right to request new trial. Even if the Plaintiff’s new trial was conducted on the 3rd anniversary of the fact that the first instance court’s new trial was conducted on the 4th anniversary of the fact that the Nonparty had no right to request new trial, this decision was made on the 4th anniversary of the fact that the new trial was conducted on the 4th anniversary of the fact that the Nonparty had no right to request new trial, which was made on the 4th new trial.

As evidence, the plaintiff representative submitted Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 19, and used the testimony of non-party Nos. 4, 2, and 5 of the original trial witness, and sought the summons of Non-party No. 5 of the witness, and the evidence No. 9-1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 11 stated that the evidence No. 1 of the contribution to the site No. 11 is recognized and used as the interest of the plaintiff of the new trial, and the defendant's representative submitted the evidence Nos. 1 through 12 of the evidence No. 11, and submitted the evidence No. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the original trial witness No. 11-1, 2-1, and 2 of the evidence No. 11-2 of the evidence No. 14 is denied.

First, the defendant's agent's assertion that this real estate is not an administrator of the plaintiff's 4th anniversary of the date of new trial, and that the administrator cannot file a lawsuit for new trial because it does not belong to the scope of the administrator of the plaintiff's 2nd. Thus, even if this real estate was confirmed in form as an administrator of the non-party 1, it cannot be said that this lawsuit for new trial was filed to recover the property of the non-party 4. Thus, the defendant's objection to new trial cannot be viewed as an act of legitimate preservation of the property of the non-party 1. The defendant's objection to new trial is groundless. According to the evidence No. 1 of this case's first instance court's 6th day of new trial's 4th day of new trial's 7th day of new trial's 4th day of new trial's 5th day of new trial's 10th day of new trial's 6th day of new trial's 5th day of new trial's 1946th day of new trial's 10.

Then, on the following merits, the Defendant for re-examination has entrusted the real estate owned by the deceased non-party 3 to the re-examination Plaintiff on April 4, 4278, but the non-party 3 cancelled the trust on the first day and sold it to the non-party 3 as his representative, although the testimony portion of the non-party 7, 6, and 8 in the name of the plaintiff for re-examination appears to correspond to each of the non-party 7, 6, and 8, the part of the testimony portion of the court below's decision that the non-party 7, 6, and 8 purchased the real estate by the non-party 3 as his representative, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's objection on the cancellation of trust and the representation of the non-party 3. Even if the sale by the deceased non-party 3 is an act of non-party 3 as an agent, the plaintiff for re-examination has confirmed it after the expiration of the period. However, each testimony portion of the non-party 7, 6, and 9 of the court below seems to have any evidence.

In addition, the defendant asserts that he had a certificate of seal impression and a registration document of real estate ownership transfer of this case, which was possessed by the plaintiff's certificate of seal impression and the real estate ownership transfer registration document prior to the birth of the plaintiff for reexamination, and that the plaintiff for reexamination was obligated to assume the responsibility for the act of the counter-party 3. However, even if the non-party 3 had a certificate of seal impression and a registration document of real estate ownership transfer of the plaintiff for reexamination, even though he had a certificate of seal impression and a registration document of real estate ownership transfer of the plaintiff for reexamination, the non-party 3 had a certificate of seal impression and a registration document for the counter-party 3's act of selling the real estate for the non-party 3, the non-party 3 is obligated to assume the responsibility for the act of the counter-party 3.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the re-appellant to reject the claim for the registration of ownership transfer to the re-appellant, but it is not necessary to determine such objection. Thus, the part of the claim for the registration of ownership transfer cancellation of the re-appellant is not included in the scope of re-adjudication, and thus, the lawsuit is dismissed as to this part of the claim. Therefore, the original judgment is modified and the litigation costs are applied by Articles 96 and 89 and the proviso of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The term of office for judges (Presiding Judge) to be promoted;