The time when the withdrawal of an appeal takes effect

A declaration of intention to withdraw an appeal may not attach any condition to the declaration of intention, and even if the declaration of intention is not made by any act of another person falling under Article 422 (1) 5 of this Act, and unless such declaration of intention is made by such act, the declaration of intention may not revoke it on the ground of such defect, nor claim the invalidity of it, unless it is made by such act

Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act

Shipbuilding Inc.

One other than the National Coal Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1744 delivered on January 11, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first ground for appeal by the plaintiff's attorney is examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, since an appellant’s withdrawal of the appeal from the appellate court’s request for adjudication by the appellate court is a unilateral act in the lawsuit, such declaration of intention may not be attached to the declaration of intention if it does not require the consent of the other party, and as long as such declaration of intention is not caused by an act falling under the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall not be deemed that the withdrawal of appeal cannot be made easily known from the outside due to such defect, even if it is caused by an act falling under the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court below's decision that the plaintiff’s withdrawal of appeal cannot be revoked for the reason of such defect, or its invalidity cannot be asserted, because the court's determination that the withdrawal of the appeal was unlawful by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the withdrawal of the appeal by the plaintiff’s own signature and seal of the representative director of the plaintiff company, which is the appellate court, prior to the delivery of a duplicate of the appeal to the other party.

The second ground for appeal shall be examined.

In comparison with the records and comparative review of the part of the judgment that the withdrawal of appeal in this case from among the original judgment is not recognized to have been prepared due to the acts of others falling under the grounds for retrial such as the ethical ethic, it is possible to find that the court below's contents of evidence Nos. 12 through No. 17, and the testimony of Non-party No. 2, which the court below stated in the lawsuit, or the testimony of Non-Party No. 2, will be a supporting material for the fact that the time of withdrawal and the settlement contract between the plaintiff and the defendant coal were bound by the settlement contract such as the plaintiff's leader between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is not possible to find that the plaintiff was bound to prepare the withdrawal document due to the acts falling under the grounds for retrial such as the ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic of the

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)