The effects of the report on the removal of an attorney and the withdrawal of action by a person other than a legitimate representative;

The plaintiff's report on the dismissal of the plaintiff's representative director who is not a legitimate representative director of the plaintiff's foundation Gap and the withdrawal of the plaintiff's lawsuit cannot be a legitimate one, and therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff's application for fixed date designation is not terminated as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

Articles 152 and 239 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana3067) of the first instance court

Each appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The plaintiff's attorney shall, with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (5) on June 2, 1960 in the separate sheet, cancel the transaction cause of the real estate as stated in the separate sheet (5) on May 30, 1960 by the Yongsan District Court No. 7105, Jun. 2, 1960; the defendant 2 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (5) on Nov. 10, 1962 by the above registry No. 18,055; the reason for the transaction of the real estate stated in the separate sheet (6) on Aug. 29, 1962 by the above registry No. 12,484 on Aug. 27, 1962; the reason for the transaction by the defendant 4 on Aug. 13, 1964 by the above registry No. 15,00,023 on Aug. 15, 1964; and each procedure for the transfer of ownership as to each real estate.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc.

The defendant et al. attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against both the plaintiff and the first and second trials, and the plaintiff's application for the designation of date is sought to have been terminated due to the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

1. Determination as to the application for fixed date designation

On November 21, 1968, Nonparty 2, who referred to as the representative director of the Plaintiff’s foundation, filed a report on the dismissal of Nonparty 1’s attorney at the same time with the Plaintiff’s attorney at the same time and filed a written withdrawal of the principal lawsuit to the Plaintiff’s attorney at the same time. However, Nonparty 2 asserted that each of the above acts done by the Plaintiff was null and void and not yet terminated. Accordingly, according to the records of this case, Nonparty 2, the representative director of the Plaintiff foundation, the Plaintiff’s foundation, was dismissed on November 5, 1968, and Nonparty 3 was appointed as the representative director on November 18, 1968, and Nonparty 2 was appointed as the representative director on November 21, 1968, and at the same time, reported the dismissal of Nonparty 1 to the Plaintiff’s attorney at the same time, and submitted this case’s withdrawal to the Defendant, etc. with the consent of the Defendant, etc. attached.

However, according to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 5 (the transcript of register, decision, decision, judgment, and judgment), which do not conflict with the establishment, the representative director of the plaintiff foundation is the non-party 3 and registered as the representative director of the plaintiff foundation on Apr. 16, 1968. On Nov. 16, 1968, the non-party 2 registered as the representative director of the plaintiff foundation on Nov. 29, 1968, but the registration of the non-party 3 was cancelled on Nov. 18, 1968 and restored to the registration of the non-party 3 as the representative director of the plaintiff foundation. Thus, the non-party 2 cannot be deemed to legally take office as the representative director of the plaintiff foundation. Thus, the above plaintiff's report of dismissal and the withdrawal of this case cannot be legitimate, and since the plaintiff's application for designation as the plaintiff's attorney is not a legitimate withdrawal of this case.

2. Judgment on the main defense and main defense

(1) In addition to the following determination, determination on the main defense and main defense among the grounds for the judgment to be indicated by a party member on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the original judgment, and thus, this determination is cited in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) According to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Defendant, etc. (No. 1346 of May 29, 1963), in case where the pertinent authorities have sold or disposed of the property of a profit-making corporation or other organization belonging to not less than 1/2 of the stocks or shares prior to the enforcement of the Act, a person who has an interest may file a lawsuit only within two months from the enforcement date of the Act, and in case of the expiration of the period, the defect of the sale or disposition shall be deemed to be a lawful sale and purchase pursuant to Article 8 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. However, as of August 9, 1945, all directors of the Plaintiff corporation shall be Japan and shall be deemed to have the authority, that is, all of the directors of the Plaintiff corporation as a Japanese person (the stock or shares shall be deemed to be an exemplary expression of control rights) or other organization, that is, when the Plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit, it shall be deemed to have been dismissed the Plaintiff corporation or other organization.

The plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff above shall be accepted on the basis of its reasoning. However, the original judgment is just in its conclusion and the appeal by the defendant et al. is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 93, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of the costs of appeal.

Judges Yekpo-syun (Presiding Judge)