Where the litigation representative voluntarily withdraws the lawsuit, the mental damage of the party himself/herself and any damage incurred due to special circumstances.

If an attorney-at-law appointed as the attorney-at-law of a lawsuit on the ground of infringement of property rights voluntarily withdraws the lawsuit during the performance of the lawsuit, the plaintiff's mental damage suffered by him/her is due to special circumstances, and thus, he/she may be admitted only if the attorney-at-law knew or could have known

Article 751 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 78Na199,350 decided May 14, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

(1) Part of the primary claim

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the part of the plaintiff's claim for consolation money on the ground that in the judgment on the part of the plaintiff's primary claim for consolation money, the defendant appointed as the plaintiff's attorney (Attorney) in the lawsuit whose property right is infringed and voluntarily withdrawn during the lawsuit and sought compensation for damages arising therefrom, in addition to compensating for the property damage, the plaintiff's mental damage is caused by special circumstances and it is recognized that the defendant knew or could have known of such special circumstances. However, even though the defendant already withdrawn the lawsuit and knew that the case was terminated, the damage was caused again by the defendant's judgment, and there was no evidence that the defendant knew or could have known of such special circumstances, and there was no error in the rules of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence.

(2) Part of the conjunctive claim

Even if the record reveals, the court below rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim without reliance on the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion. The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is legitimate, and even based on the defendant's result of the defendant's personal examination, the defendant recommended the plaintiff to make a settlement because he would make a single taxi value at the time of June 1974, and it does not constitute such agreed fact, and there is no other illegal cause such as insufficient deliberation and lack of reasoning in the above judgment.

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

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)