A. A dissolved corporation is a party's ability as it is not the completion of liquidation while the lawsuit in which it became a party is pending.

B. The judicial signature of the judgment is not unlawful in Korean language.

A. A dissolved corporation is a party's ability not to complete liquidation while the lawsuit in which it became a party is pending.

B. The judicial signature of the judgment is not the Korean characters written in the family register, but is not an error in Korean language.

Article 47 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 67Na491 delivered on March 5, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal is examined.

However, the argument that the evidence No. 2 (Abandonment) did not relate to the land of this case is not a matter of fact, and that the Federation of Korea Financial Associations of Korea would waive the right to claim for registration of the land of this case against the defendant cannot be employed.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

However, according to the reasoning of the original judgment, the lower court recognized that the theory of lawsuit that was transferred to Nonparty 1 by the judgment of No. 9 on the lawsuit was rescinded, and that the Plaintiff, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5, etc. were paid damages to the other party and received the return of the site of the lawsuit. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as pointed out in the arguments, as otherwise

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, as established in the original judgment, insofar as the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of the land of this case held against the defendant by the Federation of Financial Associations of Korea has not been extinguished, the provisional registration or provisional disposition registration in order to preserve the right to claim shall not have an objection to the effect of the provisional registration or provisional disposition in order to preserve the right to claim. Therefore, the appeal to which the original judgment is discussed shall not

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

However, even if the record is examined, it cannot be said that the original judgment did not adopt the theory of the original judgment as the material for fact-finding, and that the protocol violated the rules of evidence.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, it is justifiable to view that the original judgment against the Plaintiff’s Federation of Financial Associations of Korea could not be subject to extinctive prescription in the previous case, but that the period of extinctive prescription would run from January 1, 1966 to January 1, 196 pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Addenda of the Civil Act. We do not agree with this point.

The grounds of appeal No. 6 are examined.

However, as long as the lawsuit of this case is pending even after the dissolution of the Federation of Korea Financial Associations and the completion of the liquidation of other parts than this case, the Federation of Korea Financial Associations cannot be employed to raise an appeal on this point to the effect that the said Federation has the ability to be a party.

The grounds of appeal No. 7 are examined.

However, there is no basis to accept the fact that the certificate of No. 7 was falsely fabricated. There is no basis to accept it in the record.

The grounds of appeal No. 8 are examined.

However, it is clear that the original judgment has the signature and seal of the judge who participated in the judgment, and the signature must not necessarily be written in the same language as the one entered in the family register, so it cannot be viewed that it is unlawful for the participating judges to have signed their names in the Korean language

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs for the appeal.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)