Whether the service of documents to the legal representative prior to the taking effect of the power of attorney upon application for permission of a legal representative is lawful (negative)

In a case adjudicated by a single judge, the power of attorney by an application for permission of a legal representative is generated from the time when permission of a court is obtained. If the attorney has received a writ of summons in the capacity of an agent before the date when the court permits it, the writ of summons shall be unlawful as the service to a person without the power of attorney.

Article 80(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 81Na385 delivered on December 23, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

A person, other than an attorney-at-law, may become a litigation representative only for a person who has obtained permission from a court in a case adjudicated by a single judge, and his/her power of attorney shall take place from the time when permission has been obtained from the court. According to the records, the writ of summons of January 29, 1981 against the plaintiff was impossible to serve the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's representative at the date of pleading of January 28, 1981 is deemed to have received the writ of summons of the above date of pleading under the qualification of the representative. However, although it is obvious that the first instance court permitted the application for permission of the attorney-at-law to appoint the same head as the plaintiff as the litigation representative at the same time, the delivery of a writ of summons of the date of pleading to the same head cannot be deemed legitimate as the delivery to the person who has no power of attorney. Thus, it is groundless to deem that the above service is legitimate.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

The judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as a violation of the precedents of party members, and the remaining arguments are erroneous in the incomplete deliberation of the court below, and there is an error of law in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution, or in violation of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which applies to this case, it is clear that such an error does not constitute any ground of appeal under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and therefore it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)