If a person who is under detention due to an error in the escort by a correctional officer, fails to appear on the date of pleading of the civil trial, falls under the category “if he fails to appear on the date of pleading due to any cause not attributable

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff, who was confined to a prison, was unable to appear at the time of the designated date for pleading due to a mistake in the escort of a prison officer, it cannot be deemed that the case constitutes “where a party is unable to appear on the date for pleading due to a cause not attributable to him” under Article 241(3) of the

(a) Article 241(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 241(3) of the same Act; Article 241(4)(d) of the same Act; Article 160 of the same Act

Reopening Plaintiff

Housing Act of the representative of the law other than the Republic of Korea shall be determined by the Minister of Justice.

Jeonju District Court Decision 73Na1 delivered on February 27, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff for retrial are examined.

The court below is justified in finding that the plaintiff was confined to a military prison and was unable to appear at the time of the date of pleading designated by the prison officer on July 4, 1973 due to the error in the escort by the prison officer, and it does not constitute "where the party concerned was unable to appear on the date of pleading due to any cause not attributable to him" under Article 241 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it does not constitute "where the party concerned was unable to appear on the date of pleading due to any cause not attributable to him," and there is no violation of the law such as the theory of lawsuit. In addition, according to the records, the plaintiff is deemed to have been withdrawn on July 4, 1973 due to the absence of two or more parties involved in this case, so the plaintiff is filing an application for the subsequent completion of litigation as of July 18 of the same year. However, in such a case, it cannot be permitted to apply for the subsequent completion of litigation. Therefore, since the court below viewed this as the plaintiff's application for designation of the date of pleading, it cannot be argued.

Therefore, under the above opposing opinion, all the arguments that attack the original judgment are groundless, and the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)