A. The withdrawal cannot take effect upon the defendant's refusal of consent with respect to the withdrawal of a lawsuit, and even if the defendant gives his/her consent thereafter, the withdrawal shall not take effect.

B. When an appeal was filed with the commission of a lawsuit by the Defendants, who are the deceased, during the interruption of the lawsuit, the defects cannot be corrected, and it is reasonable to dismiss the appeal.

A. During the interruption of a lawsuit, when an appeal was filed by the Defendants, who are the deceased, with the delegation of the lawsuit by the said Defendants, the defects cannot be corrected. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed

B. The withdrawal cannot take effect if the defendant refuses to give his/her consent to the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and even if the defendant gives his/her consent thereafter, the withdrawal shall not take effect.

Article 239(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

A school juristic person's occupational training institute (Attorney Jeon Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and 75 others (Attorney Lee Byung-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1823, 1824, 1825 Decided December 5, 1968

The appeal by Defendant 67 and Defendant 63 shall be dismissed.

All appeals by the remaining Defendants except Defendant 67 and Defendant 63 are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the appeal filed by Defendant 67 and Defendant 63 shall be borne by the said Defendants’ Eindition, and the part arising from the appeal filed by the remaining Defendants other than the said two Defendants shall be borne by the said Defendants’ Eindition.

First of all, the defendant 67 and 63's appeal, which were pointed out in the defendant's ground of appeal No. 3, is examined. According to the family register's transcript of this case's records, the defendant 67 died on September 24, 1967 and the defendant 63 died on September 15, 1966. According to the records of this case, the above defendants can be found to have died while the court below is the Seoul High Court, but since the above defendants' legal representative is under litigation, the proceedings are not suspended, the court below's judgment did not contain any error of law and the above judgment's original is delivered to the above defendants' legal representative, and thus, the proceedings are suspended as non-litigation. According to the records, despite the fact that there was no legitimate procedure of litigation by the defendants' legal representative, the defendant's appeal of this case's legal representative who submitted the above deceased plaintiff's appeal with the delegation of the lawsuit by the plaintiff's legal representative is unlawful and it cannot be corrected.

Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant et al.

If the defendant refuses to give consent to the withdrawal of the plaintiff on a conclusive basis, the withdrawal of the plaintiff cannot take effect, and therefore, even if the defendant gives his consent to the withdrawal of the lawsuit after the date, the validity of the withdrawal cannot take effect. Therefore, as long as the court below rejected the defendant's consent to the withdrawal of the lawsuit on the merits of the plaintiff, it is reasonable in the original judgment that did not recognize the validity of the withdrawal of the lawsuit after the defendant consented to the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and therefore, the appeal is groundless

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below did not err in finding the fact that the defendant transferred the house in his residence to the truth for the same reasons as the theory of lawsuit No. 3 on the ground that the plaintiff transferred the house in his residence to the truth and did not reside in his domicile. There is no error in the court below's rejection of the contents of No. 1-1-59 of the No. 1 of the No. 59 of the No. 2 and the witness's testimony in the No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the No. 1 of the No. 2 (building Training and Report Book). The court below rejected it on the ground that the defendants' name, such as the theory, is not stated on the No. 2-1 of the No. 2 of the No. 1 of the No. 2

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)