A. The court's decision on the dismissal of a party's intervention in the case where the original defendant did not invoke the method of evidence submitted by the party

(b) Relationship between delegation and power of representation;

C. Article 394(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act and a judgment

A. In a case where all or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit is his own right, or where a party participates in a lawsuit between others by asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right, and the decision of rejection for intervention has become final and conclusive, the part of the intervention shall be separated, and in such a case, the method of evidence submitted by the intervenor shall not be required to determine evidence in the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant unless the plaintiff and the defendant

B. Article 1 (1) 2 of this Act provides that "when a judge, who is not entitled to participate in a judgment by law, participates in the proceedings relating to the establishment of the judgment" means the case in which the judgment is involved, and it is reasonable to interpret that the purport of the judgment is not to be the case including the

C. Delegation and granting of power of representation mean a separate independent act that refers to an internal obligation between a delegating person and a delegating person, and the power of representation refers to an internal obligation and obligation between a delegating person and an delegating person, and the effect of an agent’s act refers to external qualifications that affect the principal. Thus, although a delegation contract requires granting of power of representation, its effect does not affect the delegating person and the delegating person, Article 655 of the former Civil Act does not apply to a delegation contract. The reason for termination of delegation is merely the purport that the delegating person and the delegating person continue to have the rights and obligations under

D. If a creditor is deemed to exercise the opposing power and the debtor is notified of such fact or the debtor is aware of such fact pursuant to Section 1 of this Article, the debtor cannot dispose of such right. Therefore, in case where the creditor files a lawsuit by the method of exercising the debtor's right of conflict, if the creditor notifies the debtor of such fact or becomes aware of such fact, the debtor cannot file the same lawsuit against the same defendant as the exercise of the same right.

Articles 72 and 394(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 655 of the former Civil Act

1. At least five persons, including the head of the Silsan corporation and one other party intervenor, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and five persons

Woo-Skn Shipping et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 60No1349, 1350 delivered on February 22, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 200Da1350 delivered on February 22, 1961

The defendants' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The part concerning the participation of the parties in this case was determined by the parties' intervenor as the period of prosecution against the judgment of the court of first instance.

First of all, we judge the grounds of appeal of the defendant Yang Chuncheon Line and the safe source species.

In accordance with Article 405 (1) of the Civil Act, when a creditor commences an exercise of the right of subrogation and notifies the debtor thereof or when the debtor becomes aware of such fact pursuant to Article 405 (1) of the Civil Act, the debtor cannot dispose of such right. Therefore, in case where a creditor files a lawsuit by means of acting in behalf of the debtor, if the creditor notifies the debtor of such fact or becomes aware of such fact, the debtor cannot bring an identical lawsuit against the same defendant as the exercise of the same right. In this case, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is filed on April 16, 1958. The defendant's principal lawsuit against the defendant in this case is filed on July 19, 1958. The defendant's principal lawsuit against the defendant in this case had been aware of the head lawsuit against the defendant prior to the institution of the lawsuit is legally recognized by the court below. Thus, the principal lawsuit which had already been filed by the institution of the lawsuit in head and salary as well as the principal lawsuit cannot be deemed as an unlawful lawsuit, and thus, the defendant's principal lawsuit lawsuit is legitimate.

The argument points 2 and 5 are that when the part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right or is infringed upon the rights by the result of the lawsuit between the parties, the part of the trial by the rejection of the intervention becomes separated and the part of the lawsuit shall be restored to the original lawsuit. In such a case, the method of evidence submitted by the intervenor does not require the judgement of evidence in the lawsuit between the original defendant unless the original defendant is invoked by the original defendant. In this case, on February 16, 1960, although the original case asserted that the mining right is owned by the intervenor and applied for intervention by the independent party on February 16, 1960, the intervenor's request for intervention against the defendant was dismissed on June 30, 1960, it is obvious in the records that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants was dismissed, and the purport of the intervenor's request against the plaintiffs is that the original defendant was dismissed by the first instance court's first instance court's ruling, and it is not necessary to interpret the contents of the lawsuit between the original defendant and the first instance's statement.

Therefore, since the evidence of this paper cannot be found as to the evidence of this case, it is not necessary to make a judgment, and since the evidence of this case Nos. 25 and 27 can be read to the effect that it is included in the evidence rejected by the court below, there is no reason to argue that the court below's judgment is based on its own legal opinion.

In this paper, the third and fourth points of the decision of the court below are merely based on the independent opinion that the plaintiffs recognized that the defendant had a claim as stated in the judgment of the court below as to the non-party 2's salary class, and there is no reason, and in comparison with each evidence cited in the judgment of the court below as to the sixth point of the issue, the purport of the decision of the court below is that the defendant 1 was delivered the seals of the non-party 2's salary class to the non-party 2 to his family members or the seals of the non-party 3 to the non-party 3 and 4 to the non-party 2, and the defendant 1 was delivered the seals to the non-party 2's family members as stated in the judgment of the court below and the defendant 3 and 4 did not use the seals to the non-party 2's family members, and then prepare a contract of the same kind of the mining right in this case to the non-party 1, 1953 as to the mining right stated in the main paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below's decision.

We explained above that there is no need for judgment as to Gap's evidence and Byung's evidence 2 and 8, and among the evidence rejected by the court below, it can be sufficiently read that the evidence contains Nos. 2 and 8's evidence , and the court below's other arguments are merely based on its independent opinion on the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding of the evidence belonging to the exclusive authority, and there is no reason for this issue.

With respect to Article 9 of the Civil Code, Article 655 of the Civil Code provides that the termination of delegation cannot be set up against the other party unless the other party notifies the other party of the termination or the other party becomes aware of it. Legal delegation and granting of power of attorney are separate independent acts, and delegation refer to internal obligation and obligation between the delegating and the delegated party, and the power of attorney refers to external qualifications that affect the principal. Therefore, although the delegation contract requires the granting of power of attorney, the delegation contract alone does not affect the delegated party except the delegating and the delegated party. Therefore, the purport of Article 655 of the Civil Code is that the ground for termination of delegation is merely the purport of notifying the other party of the ground for termination of delegation or notifying the other party of it, or the delegation and the delegated party continue to maintain the rights and obligations under the delegation contract, and it is no relation with the delegation. Therefore, the argument made by the Defendants in the original judgment cannot be viewed as an assertion as to the delegation and delegation in favor of the Defendants, and therefore, the court below' rejection of such assertion on the ground as stated in its reasoning.

The argument about the 10th issue is that the court below's determination of the evidence and fact-finding, which is legitimate, cannot be admitted merely under its independent opinion.

Article 394 (1) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judge, who is not entitled to participate in a judgment by law, participates in the judgment, it is nothing more than the time when the judge takes part in the judgment." Thus, it is reasonable to interpret Article 394 (1) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act as the purpose of maintaining the fairness of the trial to exclude the judge from the performance of his duties by prescribing exclusion and avoidance of the judge in Section 2. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the provision of Article 394 (1) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act as not to the purport of the judgment, including a sentence which is merely the procedure of announcement of the judgment which has already been established and the procedure of announcement to the outside, it is reasonable to close the pleadings in the original judgment on February 1, 1961. The decision of the court is pronounced 10:00 am on February 22, 1961. Since it is apparent that the case was recorded in the records, and thus, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment that the motion should not affect the judgment or the amendment.

The next argument is examined. Ultimately, the court below's determination on the issue is merely the fact that the court below is stable, and thus, it does not constitute a legal ground for appeal.

As above, the appeal shall be dismissed in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' arguments are without merit.

Finally, on June 25, 1960, the heir of the non-party salary grade asserts that the withdrawal of the lawsuit was revoked under the name of the court below, which is the taking over of the salary grade, and that the party intervenor participated in the lawsuit as a party intervenor. According to the records of this case, the first instance trial's pleading is concluded on March 16, 1960, and the withdrawal of the lawsuit in the name of the court below was submitted to the court of first instance on June 25, 1960, but the withdrawal was not served to the original defendant, but the withdrawal was ordered on June 30, 1960, which was not served to the original defendant. The plaintiff's objection against the defendant was dismissed, and the period of the public prosecution against the judgment of the court of first instance was imposed on the defendant, and the separation of the above part of the part of the lawsuit was clearly confirmed. Therefore, the non-party salary grade's independent party's assertion that the part of the lawsuit was not separated from the judgment of the court of first instance and the first instance did not become final.

This decision is made by unanimous opinion of all participating judges.

Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court