Notice of the designation of date to the attorney at the date of pleading, and relationship with the principal

Inasmuch as a notice of lawful designation of date has been given at the date of pleading before the previous pleading, the notice shall naturally affect the principal. Thus, if such attorney was submitted at the next date of pleading and fails to appear due to the failure to contact the date from such attorney, it shall not be deemed that the party concerned was unable to appear due to any cause not attributable to him/her.

Article 241 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da271 delivered on August 22, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 6041,6042 delivered on August 22, 1963; Supreme Court Decision 11Du78 delivered on July 2, 197; Decision 241(7,8)945 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 74Gahap75 delivered on July 1, 198

The lawsuit of this case shall be deemed to have been withdrawn on December 26, 1974 and shall be terminated. The litigation costs after the application for designation of date shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant is demanding to designate the date for pleading of the litigation in this case.

According to the records, in the lawsuit of this case, the defendant was ruled against the court below on Sep. 11, 1974 and brought an appeal lawfully against the party member on Sep. 24, 1974. The party member designated 09:30 on Oct. 31, 1974 as the first date for pleading of the case and lawfully summoned the defendant both. The defendant did not appear on the same date for pleading but did not present at the court. Thus, the same party member decided Nov. 14, 1974 as the second date for pleading and served a registered mail on Nov. 4, 1974 to the defendant who was absent, who did not appear on Nov. 14, 1974 and notified the plaintiff as the second date for pleading, but he did not appear on the third day for pleading of this case on Nov. 28, 1974 and notified the third day for postponement of pleading as the third day for pleading of the defendant's agent, but he did not appear on the first date for pleading of this case.

However, on the fifth pleading date of December 26, 1974, when filing an application for the designation of the date of the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant principal failed to attend the meeting because the designation of the date was impossible, but this was not due to the reason attributable to the defendant. Thus, according to the records, since the defendant's legal representative's withdrawal from office at the time of the fifth pleading date of the lawsuit in this case, it is acknowledged that the defendant's legal representative at the time of the fifth pleading date was received at the time of the plaintiff's legal representative at around December 26, 1974, and since the notice was duly designated and announced to the defendant's legal representative present at the fourth pleading date of the lawsuit in this case, the notification is naturally effective, and the representative did not contact the defendant himself, and the effect of such notice cannot be deemed to affect the defendant himself, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant principal's failure to attend at the date of the fifth pleading date does not constitute a case where the party did not appear due to the reason under Article 241 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is deemed to have been withdrawn from the appeal on December 26, 1974 by Article 241 (2) and (4) of the same Act, and it has already been terminated. Therefore, the application for designating the date of this case is without merit, and therefore, the decision is made to declare the termination of the lawsuit, and the litigation cost incurred after the application for designating the date is assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge) Yang Young-tae Kim