Whether a title truster can ratification a defect in his/her power of representation if a defect in the power of representation has occurred in the telephone for filing a lawsuit against the respondent (negative)

Since the right of representation is the party to the lawsuit telephone that can confirm the defects in the right of representation in the lawsuit telephone, the title truster of the site which is the object of the lawsuit telephone can confirm the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the applicant, regardless of the fact that the title truster of the site which is the object of the lawsuit telephone can confirm the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the applicant.

Articles 56, 80, 88, and 355 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the applicant

Attorney Lee Jin-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na10318 delivered on December 26, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined as follows. The grounds of appeal are examined as to the supplement of the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the telephone of this case on the original site was conducted under the involvement of the respondent who voluntarily appointed the plaintiff by forging a letter of delegation of the lawsuit under the name of the respondent, the court below recognized that there was a quasi-deliberation of defects in the right of representation, and on the other hand, the above site was purchased jointly for the benefit of resale and trust with the respondent. On the other hand, the non-party 1, the title truster, the above site was entrusted with the name of the respondent. On April 1983, 1983, after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the applicant under the above statement of telephone of this case, Seoul District Court 83 Ma935 on behalf of the respondent, which was the Respondent and the above Respondent, the court below accepted the above Respondent's right of confirmation on the ground that the applicant violated the above Respondent's right of representation on behalf of the Respondent and received the above Respondent's legal completion of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the above Respondent.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)