The validity of the Plaintiff’s sub-agent’s act of litigation as a sub-agent in the same case

Even in cases where an attorney-at-law, who was present at the date of pleading, as a sub-agent of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, appeared and testified as a sub-agent of the Defendant’s lawsuit, if the parties did not raise any objection thereto, such litigation takes full effect under the

Article 124 of the Civil Act, Article 140 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 24 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 72Da1183 Decided May 13, 1975 (Gong1975, 8453) Decided 73Da437 delivered on October 23, 1973 (Gong1973, 754) 94Da4910 delivered on July 28, 195 (Dong)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 93Na2203 delivered on July 22, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the evidences, and found the above facts. According to the above facts, the defendant purchased each land of this case with the delegation of the plaintiff, and completed provisional registration as stated in the purport of the claim, and agreed to cancel each provisional registration on September 9, 191 to the plaintiff on September 9, 191. Thus, the defendant is obligated to cancel the above provisional registration, barring any special circumstance, on the other hand, the defendant's assertion that the sales contract (No. 1) pointing out is forged and the plaintiff's father is the non-party who is the head of the defendant and the non-party who is the non-party who is the head of the plaintiff, was purchased from the above non-party and did not complete the transfer registration of ownership, so the above sale price of each land of this case was not only purchased from the above non-party but also did not have any right to the land of this case. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are justified, and there is no error in violation of law of law

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, it is revealed in the court below that there was a fact that an attorney-at-law, who was present at the date of pleading and participated in the litigation as a sub-agent of the defendant's lawsuit at the court below, was present at the court below, but even in such a case, if the parties do not raise any objection, the litigation act shall take effect in full under the Civil Procedure Act. However, there is no trace that the parties raised any objection at the court below, and there is no reason to argue about this.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)