The case holding that the withdrawal of an appeal is lawful

The reason behind the fact that the appellant was in a state of impossibility to move into a new illness, and the attorney was de facto resigned and was unable to appear on the date for pleading cannot be a legal ground for applying for designation of the date for pleading.

Articles 241, 363, and 378 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Seoul Central District Court (74Gahap2118) in the first instance trial

This case was terminated on September 4, 1975 by deeming the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s appeal to have been made.

Expenses for appeal after an application for designated date is filed shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On June 21, 1953, the defendant implemented the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of prescription on the part 70 square meters of the ship connecting each point of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 1, of the 81-58 dry field, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, for the plaintiff 436 dry field.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The plaintiff sought a judgment identical with that of the original judgment revoked and the purport of the claim, and tried to designate the date after this lawsuit was filed by the absence of both parties on September 4, 1975.

According to the records, the plaintiff, the defendant, and their legal representatives were not present even after receiving a legitimate date notice on the first day of pleading (10:00 of May 29, 1975) and the second day of pleading (10:00 of September 4, 1975) in the court of first instance. Thus, barring any special circumstance, this case is deemed to have been withdrawn from the plaintiff's appeal due to the absence of both parties.

The plaintiff and his legal representative did not appear as above on the date of the sixth pleading in the trial of the court of first instance because they were in a state of dynamic impossibility due to a new illness at the time. The plaintiff's legal representative was in a de facto resignation at the time, and the plaintiff's legal representative was present on behalf of the plaintiff at the time, and thus, the plaintiff's legal representative should continue the lawsuit by designating the date of the pleading again and continuing the lawsuit. However, it is obvious that the plaintiff's legal ground, as alleged in the above, cannot be the ground for applying for the designation of the date of pleading, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was unable to appear on the date of the above trial of the court due to

Therefore, the plaintiff's request for designating the date of this case is without merit, and it is clear that the lawsuit of this case was terminated by the absence of both parties as the withdrawal of the plaintiff's appeal on September 4, 1975. Thus, it shall be declared that the request for designating the date of appeal shall be made, and the cost of appeal after the date shall be borne by the applicant party.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)