A. H.P. (Attorney Lee In-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Mission, Attorneys Gelim et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Gahap4758 Decided July 11, 2008

1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by Nonparty 1.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1,300,291,405 won with 16% interest per annum from September 10, 2004 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the appeal of this case.

Of the joint representative directors of the Plaintiff Company, Nonparty 1 filed the instant lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff Company against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, who is another joint representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and only the auditor of the Plaintiff Company. On February 14, 2007, the court of first instance, upon the application of Nonparty 1, appointed Nonparty 2 as a special representative pursuant to Articles 64 and 62 of the Civil Procedure Act, between the Plaintiff Company and Defendant 1, and between the Plaintiff Company and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, respectively. Thus, in the instant lawsuit, only the said special representative and Nonparty 2 are entitled to represent the Plaintiff Company.

However, the above non-party 1 filed the instant appeal on behalf of the plaintiff company on August 7, 2008, and appointed the attorney Lee hee as his/her attorney on October 15, 2008. The court ordered the attorney present at the first date of pleading on October 16, 2008 to correct the Plaintiff’s representative authority and representative authority within five days, and extended the said date of pleading on October 23, 2008. However, the Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s representative authority and proxy authority until the date of the above order of correction until the date of publication is apparent.

Thus, the appeal of this case is filed by a person who is not authorized to represent the plaintiff, and its defects are not corrected within the correction period despite the correction order of this court. Thus, the appeal of this case is dismissed pursuant to Articles 408 and 219 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)