(a) The validity of any excess act beyond his/her authority after the expiration of the adjudication period for disappearance by the administrator of an absentee upon permission;

B. Whether the judgment filed for a retrial conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered later, and whether it constitutes Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

A. An administrator of an absentee who obtained permission for excess of his/her authority and received the decision of appointment before the decision of appointment is cancelled is valid even if the action was made after the expiration of the adjudication period for disappearance of the absentee.

B. The case where a final and conclusive judgment prior to the filing of a new trial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of the final and conclusive judgment refers to the case where res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment subject to a new trial conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to that time, and thus, it does not constitute a case where the judgment

A. Articles 22 and 25 of the Civil Act; Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da2023 Delivered on June 10, 1975

Bolim Partnership (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Defendant (Re-Appellant) and Defendant and Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s most recent punishment

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2260 delivered on October 10, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant and his assistant intervenor.

1. As to the first ground for appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor

An absentee administrator who obtained permission for excess of authority and received a decision of appointment from the above authority before the decision of appointment was revoked, shall be deemed valid even if the act was performed after the expiration of the adjudication period for disappearance of the absentee (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da2023, Jun. 10, 1975). Accordingly, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party's act of filing a suit with the same purport.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to cases where res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment subject to review conflicts with res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment, and it does not constitute cases where the final and conclusive judgment which is the object of review conflicts with res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment, and where a judgment which is the object of review conflicts with res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, in cases where a new trial is instituted on the grounds of mutual conflict between the said judgment and a final and conclusive judgment, as long as the said judgment became final and conclusive after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, the court below’s rejection of the request for retrial of this case made against the said judgment on the grounds that the said judgment does not conflict with a final and conclusive judgment and the said judgment, which became final

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)