In case where the adjudication of disappearance is confirmed for the absentee himself while the lawsuit is pending by the administrator of the absentee, whether the proceedings shall be interrupted or not.

Proceedings shall be interrupted until a lawful lawsuit is taken by an inheritor, etc., inasmuch as the adjudication of disappearance on the absentee himself/herself becomes final and conclusive while the proceedings are in progress by the administrator of an absentee.

Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 22 and 28 of the Civil Act

(B) The plaintiff (the plaintiff) who is the litigant of the absentee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Defendant 1 and 8 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na2518 delivered on April 29, 1985

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

If an absentee is declared missing at the request of an interested person or a public prosecutor because his life or death is unknown for a specified period and the period of his disappearance expires, the proceedings shall be suspended unless the interested person is appointed a legal representative. In this case, the proceedings shall be suspended unless the parties concerned are appointed, and the proceedings shall not take over until a lawful lawsuit is taken place by a successor, an administrator of inherited property, or any other person who can proceed with the proceedings pursuant to the law. While the proceedings are suspended, the proceedings shall not take over until a legitimate lawsuit is taken place by a person who has taken over the proceedings, and the proceedings shall not be effective during that period. If the adjudication of disappearance of the absentee himself is confirmed by an administrator of the absentee during the proceedings, the status of the administrator is terminated, and even in that case, the legal principle in which the proceedings are suspended until a legitimate lawsuit is taken by the heir, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu850, Oct. 25, 1983)

However, according to the records, the lawsuit of this case was filed by the non-party who was appointed as an administrator of absentee property by the court and filed the lawsuit of this case on May 25, 1984, and the judgment of the court of first instance was sentenced. The judgment of the court of first instance was affirmed on July 1, 1984 when the defendants filed an appeal against the judgment of first instance and the lawsuit was pending in the court of first instance. The judgment of the court of first instance is declared missing on July 28, 1984, and the non-party's status as an absentee property administrator for the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's property right was terminated (after the court of first instance's non-party's legal representative's non-party's non-party's property right.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is a judgment conducted through procedural acts conducted during the interruption of litigation procedures, and it constitutes the ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)

The substitution of a judge of the Supreme Court cannot sign and seal due to retirement.