[1] Power of the representative of a clan and suspension of legal proceedings

[2] Whether the court has a duty to deliberate and investigate a case where there are circumstances suspected of doubt by the materials already submitted about the existence of legitimate representation of the clan representative, which is a matter of ex officio investigation (affirmative)

[1] Article 31 of the Civil Act; Articles 64, 58, 235, and 238 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 31 of the Civil Act; Articles 52 and 134 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 72Da1271, 1272 decided Oct. 31, 1972 (No. 20-3, 80) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da21039 decided Oct. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2708), Supreme Court Decision 92Da48789, 48796 decided Mar. 12, 1993 (Gong193, 1169), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5288 decided May 23, 195 (Gong195Ha, 2237)

1. The term “public interest” means the public interest of private interest in private interest in private interest in private interest in private interest in private interest.

Western Cultural Foundation (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na20612 decided April 3, 2007

The instant lawsuit was concluded as the withdrawal of an appeal on October 8, 2007. The litigation costs incurred after the completion of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The provisions concerning legal representation and legal representative in the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the representative of a clan; the fact that there is a representative authority shall be proved in writing; the litigation procedures shall be interrupted when the representative of a clan has lost his/her representative authority; in this case, the person who has become the representative of a clan shall take over the litigation procedures; but if there is an attorney, the litigation procedures shall not be interrupted (see, e.g., Articles 64, 58, 235, 238, etc. of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where there is an attorney and litigation procedures are not interrupted, a new representative may take over the litigation procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da1271, Oct. 31, 1972; Supreme Court Decision 72Da1271, Oct. 31, 1972; Supreme Court Decision 95Da15489, Apr. 16, 198; Supreme Court Decision 97Da1989, Apr. 19, 1997).

According to the records, the non-party 1, the representative of the plaintiff clan, filed a final appeal against the judgment below on April 23, 2007, and the non-party 2, who was newly appointed as the Do governor of the plaintiff clan on October 8, 2007, prepared and submitted a written withdrawal of the final appeal as the representative of the plaintiff clan, along with the minutes of the general meeting meeting in 2007, the names of the members, the letter of delegation, the pass report, and the certificate thereof. Thus, the party member examined the legality of the power of representation based on the records of trial and the data submitted by the non-party 2, and dealt with the lawsuit of this case as withdrawn.

In this regard, the attorney of the plaintiff clan submitted an application for continuation of the appeal case to the party members on November 23, 2007, and the resolution that the non-party 2 appointed the non-party 1 as a Do-style representative of the plaintiff clan is null and void, and the non-party 2 still claims that the non-party 2 has no effect of taking a final appeal as the representative of the plaintiff clan. Accordingly, according to the data submitted by the non-party 2 in this case and other records, he was deemed to have been appointed as a Do-style at the ordinary meeting of 2007 from the plaintiff clan. However, the plaintiff clan attorney did not find the legality of the non-party 2's representative authority because the non-party 2 did not submit all such data by the correction order of January 2, 2008, "at the time of withdrawal of the appeal of this case from the plaintiff clan, the representative of the plaintiff clan at the time of withdrawal of the appeal of this case was not non-party 2."

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is concluded by the withdrawal of the above appeal made by the non-party 2 as the representative of the plaintiff clan. Thus, the court shall declare the termination of the lawsuit, and the costs of the lawsuit after the completion of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)