(a) Whether to succeed to a legal status in case where the rights and duties are succeeded to by the provisions of Acts;

B. Summary of a trial on a request for taking over a lawsuit (negative)

(c) The impact on the case where the judgement contains an error of indicating the successor as the successor to right.

(d) Validity of an act done by a legal representative of a mother on behalf of an adult;

(a) In case where the rights and duties of a corporation are succeeded to a newly incorporated corporation under the provisions of Acts, such corporation’s legal status shall also be succeeded to a newly incorporated corporation in a pending lawsuit, unless there exist any special grounds;

B. Whether a request for a takeover of a lawsuit is lawful is a matter of ex officio investigation by the court and where the takeover is deemed groundless as a result of investigation, it should be dismissed, but if there is good cause, it can proceed with a lawsuit as is without need for a separate trial

C. Even though the court indicated the previous party as the succeeding intervenor after indicating the previous party to the judgment, inasmuch as the trial was initiated after succeeding to the rights and obligations of the said Jung-Eup as the previous party to the lawsuit after taking over the lawsuit, it is merely erroneous for the indication of the party, and the appeal is not withdrawn due to the absence of two times by the previous party to the lawsuit.

D. On November 9, 1956, the defendant's mother, as the legal representative of the defendant's mother (date of birth omitted), sold the land owned by the defendant to the non-party company, as the defendant had already attained majority, so the above sales contract is merely an act of unauthorized representation, and it cannot be said that it naturally extends to the defendant.

A. Article 74(b)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 227(c) of the Act on the Ad Hoc of Local Autonomy, Article 2, Article 3 of the Act on the Ad Hoc of Lighting Time and the Act on the Change of Military Vure Zones (Law No. 3425, Apr. 13, 1981); Article 3 of the Act on the Establishment of Maci-Maci-si and the Change of Military Vure Zones (Act No. 3425, Apr. 13, 1981); Article 4, Article 5, and Article 130 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 63Da8 delivered on April 11, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 67Da1262 delivered on April 28, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 4294Sang58 delivered on January 11, 1962

Pursuant to Article 14

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants Kim Yang-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Na494, 82Na27 delivered on June 8, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a corporation newly established pursuant to the provisions of Acts succeeds to the rights and obligations of the newly established corporation, the legal status of the newly established corporation shall also be succeeded to (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da8, Apr. 11, 1963; Supreme Court Decision 67Da1262, Apr. 28, 1970). Whether a request for continuation is legitimate or not as a result of an ex officio examination by the court, but it shall be dismissed if it is deemed that the acceptance of a lawsuit is groundless as a result of an ex officio examination by the court, but it shall be possible to proceed with the legal proceedings as it is without a separate trial (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Da558, Jan. 11, 1962). The court below decided that a request for continuation of a lawsuit was lawful and non-party 1's legal status of the newly established corporation after the commencement of the lawsuit by the plaintiff, non-party 2's succession to the legal status of the Eup, i.e., the competent court below's statutory succession to the legal status of the plaintiff.

2. The judgment of the court below on the ground of its determination that the non-party 2,182 square meters of the land of Jungju-si was not a dispute between the parties concerned as to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in succession with respect to the non-party 3's co-defendant 2, the non-party 3's co-defendant 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the non-party 5, and the legal representative of the non-party 1 transferred the land to the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the ownership ownership.

However, according to the statement of evidence No. 1, which does not dispute the formation, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant 1 was (date of birth omitted) and to see otherwise on the records. Thus, it is clear that the court below acknowledged that the mother of the defendant 1 sold the land at the time of the original purchase to the non-party 7, in the capacity of his legal representative, to the non-party 9 November 19, 1956, the defendant 1 had already become an adult. Accordingly, the original sale contract that the mother of the non-party 7 entered into between the non-party 7 and the non-party 7 with the non-party 1, as a matter of course, is merely an act of unauthorized representation.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party 7 had the authority to act for the defendant 1 at the time of conclusion of the sales contract, and there is no error of law in finding facts or in finding facts without evidence, and the judgment below accepted the plaintiff's claim by deeming that the contract by the non-party 7's act of representation was effective on the defendant 1, and therefore it constitutes a violation of law under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the appeal about this is justified.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)