Effect of withdrawal of action due to mistake

Even if the withdrawal of a lawsuit was caused by mistake of the parties, so long as it is evident that it is not caused by an act of criminal punishment of the other party or a third party, the declaration of intention of withdrawal of the lawsuit may not be revoked only on such ground.

Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Minister of Delivery

This case is terminated as the withdrawal of the plaintiff's lawsuit on September 17, 1968.

Litigation costs incurred after an application for fixed date is filed shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition on March 21, 1968 to revoke the approval of the appointment of a director of a school foundation Sung-gu Senior Executives Association director, the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, and the administrative disposition to appoint Nonparty 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as a director on the same day is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First, as to the plaintiff's application for designating the date of withdrawal, the fact that the plaintiff's attorney, the non-party 7, the plaintiff's attorney, withdraws the lawsuit of this case on September 17, 1968, is not in dispute between the parties, and in light of the records, the defendant's attorney, the non-party 8, who received the copy of the above lawsuit on the day and without any objection, shall be deemed to have consented to the withdrawal of the lawsuit of this case, and barring any other circumstances, the lawsuit of this case was lawfully withdrawn.

However, the plaintiff

(1) Although Nonparty 7 was granted the authority to withdraw the lawsuit in delegated the lawsuit in this case, it is difficult to recognize it in light of the statement of the power of attorney (record) against Nonparty 7, the testimony of Nonparty 9, who alleged that the withdrawal of the lawsuit has no effect, although he did not have granted the authority to withdraw the lawsuit in addition to the fact that Nonparty 7 had the special power to withdraw the lawsuit in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Nonparty 7 asserted that, among the claims in this case, only the temporary directors whose appointment period of provisional director has elapsed ( June 30, 1968), the withdrawal of the lawsuit should be made because there is no interest in the lawsuit, and that Nonparty 7 submitted a written withdrawal of all the lawsuit including the claim portion against the plaintiff.

However, as alleged by the plaintiff, even if the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case was caused by mistake, it is evident that it was not caused by an act of criminal punishment against the defendant, his agent, or a third party, and such a mistake alone cannot be revoked. Thus, such mistake does not affect the validity of the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this point is groundless.

Therefore, since the case is obvious that the plaintiff's legitimate withdrawal of the lawsuit was terminated on March 17, 1968, the application for designating the date of this case, which is premised on the non-performance of the above withdrawal of the lawsuit, is without merit, and it is not acceptable as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's charge of litigation costs after the application for designating the date.

Judges Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Judge)