A. It is unnecessary to separate the arguments for the defendant A, who is an ordinary co-litigants, and the plaintiff, who is the other party, in the case of deeming the withdrawal of the lawsuit due to the absence of both parties.

B. The party defense stipulated in Article 156 of the Civil Procedure Act as a requirement for the commencement of the date is sufficient to defend the party himself/herself, and there is no need to defend the litigation performer.

(c) The right to manage and dispose of state forest land prescribed by the Forestry Act shall be vested in the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry unless it belongs to the management of other management authorities in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 9 of the State Properties Act.

In the case of deeming the withdrawal of the lawsuit due to the absence of both the defendant A and the other party who is the ordinary co-litigants, it is unnecessary to separate the pleadings for them.

Article 34 (Relation to Forestry Act), Article 62 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 156 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Korea

Plaintiff

Defendant 1

Defendant 2 and 10 others

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na282 delivered on July 16, 1970

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising from the Defendants’ appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff performer are examined.

In the case of Defendant 1, one of the co-litigants of this case, who is not a necessary co-litigants, and the withdrawal of an appeal due to the absence of both the parties on the date of pleading, the court below deemed the withdrawal of the appeal without separately reviewing the arguments on them. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the separation of pleadings.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

Article 156 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the title of the party who is stipulated as the requirement for the commencement of the date shall be construed as sufficient to defend the party and it shall not be necessary to defend the litigation performer. However, the court below's argument that the plaintiff and the litigation performer were absent and confirmed that the plaintiff and the litigation performer were absent, so it cannot be deemed that the court below made a false entry like the theory of lawsuit in the protocol because the plaintiff and the litigation performer were recorded in the protocol of the court below's argument that the plaintiff were absent. Thus, it is necessary that the court below must confirm the fact that the plaintiff and the litigation performer were not present, and therefore, it is not necessary to review the facts that ○○, a person of the plaintiff's litigation performer had been in the court on the day of the trial. Thus, there is no need to do so, the court below'

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below found that real estate owned by the State was entirely owned by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and decided that the above real estate belongs to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and that the above real estate belongs to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and that it was not transferred to the Minister of Finance and Economy as miscellaneous property under the premise that the above real estate was not a forest under his jurisdiction, and that the transfer of the above real estate was in violation of Article 34 of the Forestry Act, and that the transfer of the above real estate was not effective. Thus, the court below's decision that the transfer of the above real estate to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, which is an affiliated agency of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, constitutes a disposition for which the plaintiff 2 had no authority to dispose of the above real estate, and that the above real estate was transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry under the premise that the transfer of the above real estate was not a miscellaneous property under his jurisdiction, and that the above transfer of the real estate to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry was not a legitimate disposition for the plaintiff 1 and the first instance.

(2) The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the agency, since the court below's transfer of this real estate to the Minister of Finance and Economy and held that the Minister of Finance and Economy assumed the authority to dispose of the above real estate on his behalf, or it cannot be deemed that it had indicated that it was justified by the nature and legal effect of the transfer of state property and that it was just by its legal effect.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor shall not be determined since they were submitted after the expiration of the submission period.

Therefore, all appeals by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed. Of the costs of the appeal under Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal is to be borne by the Defendants respectively. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)