Even if a party does not object to the litigation in violation of Article 16 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, such litigation takes effect in full under the Civil Procedure Act, unless the party objects to it.

Even if a party has conducted a procedural act in violation of Article 16 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 63 of Nov. 7, 499), such procedural act takes full effect under the Civil Procedure Act, unless the party objects to any objection.

Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Act

63Da635 delivered on April 28, 1964

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and two others

Busan High Court Decision 68Na379 delivered on September 25, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

As shown in the record, it is evident that the attorney Lee Tae-ok, in the court of first instance, was involved in the case as a sub-agent of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs' attorney at the court of first instance (signing after the conclusion of pleadings), and the so-called attorney Lee Tae-ok, even though he conducted the procedural acts in violation of Article 16 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, unless the plaintiff raises any objection at the court below, the process of the lawsuit shall be deemed to have a complete effect under the Civil Procedure Act (refer to Supreme Court Decision 63Da635 delivered on April 28, 1964). The arguments are groundless.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the decision that the deceased non-party 1 died on March 28, 1965 (1965) of the same year is clear by the record that it is a clerical error in the year 1966, and it cannot be viewed that there is a contradiction in the reasoning as argued in the arguments. According to the facts of the judgment of the court below, the real estate of this case was originally owned by the original defendant and non-party 1, such as the deceased non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, and non-party 5, etc., who were born between the defendant and the defendant, and the plaintiff, including the defendants who were born between the plaintiff 6 and the plaintiff 4, who was the birth and the remaining plaintiffs, and the plaintiff 1, who was the birth, did not have any property equivalent to the property of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's right of inheritance or transfer registration for the remaining real estate title 1, 2065.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)