The defects of the power of attorney in the first instance court and implied ratification by the appellate court's attorney;

The litigation at the first instance court, where the power of representation was defective, shall be deemed to have been ratified by the attorney at the appellate court who received the delegation of a lawsuit from the defendant in the appellate court following the electronic lawsuit, and continuously performed by accepting the result.

Articles 88 and 56 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da972 Delivered on March 8, 1977

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Daegu High Court Decision 80Na415 delivered on October 2, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs are examined (the supplementary appellate brief is submitted after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, and it is only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds of appeal submitted within the deadline).

According to the records, although the plaintiffs were originally owned by the defendant, they were living together with them on October 20, 1974, and they sold them to the deceased non-party 2, who is the deceased, after the plaintiffs' purchase of the above real estate by the plaintiff's complaint, the court below's decision that the plaintiff was not aware of the facts of the plaintiff's first instance court's first instance court's order to revoke the confession of the plaintiff's right on December 5, 1979 (No. 35 pages) and the above court's first instance court's order to revoke the confession of the plaintiff's first instance court's non-party 1's non-party 1's allegation that the plaintiff's non-party 1 was not aware of the facts of the plaintiff's first instance court's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's allegation.

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that there is no evidence to prove the plaintiffs' assertion that the non-party 1 purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant and the deceased non-party 2 purchased it from the above non-party 1, and that there was an agreement for middle omission registration between the third party following the purchase by the non-party 1, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim of this case by explaining the following reasons: as seen above, the plaintiffs' evidence No. 4-1-3 and No. 8-8, which can be seen as necessary documents for the registration for the transfer of ownership without the interim registration of this case, and the circumstance leading up to the defendant's confession and the fact leading up to the above judgment; in addition, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and decision-finding measures are acceptable; and there is no error of law in the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the exercise of the right to explanation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)