beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff (quasi-Appellant) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Appellant).
Reasons
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the part of the judgment regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion is deleted between four and eleven (11) of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasons for the additional statement are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) such additional statement is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The plaintiff's assertion does not constitute "the defect of power of attorney" under Article 457 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the case where a person with parental authority conducts litigation without appointing a special representative of a minor pursuant to Article 921 of the Civil Act and Article 62 of the Civil Procedure Act falls under "the case where an agent has any defect in granting authority necessary for conducting litigation" and it does not constitute "the defect of power of attorney" under Article 457 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for quasi-adjudication of this case filed five years after the decision of this case
B. The judgment health room and Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act provide that “when there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority necessary for the litigation by a representative,” as grounds for retrial, Article 451(1)3 of the same Act provides that Article 457 of the same Act does not apply to a suit for retrial filed on the ground of “the defect in power of attorney” among them.
In this context, the term “defect of power of representation” means a case where there is no power of representation at all, but if there is any defect in the special power of representation necessary for conducting the procedural acts, it does not constitute the above “accident of power of representation”. Supreme Court Decisions 67Da2117 Decided April 30, 1968; 68Da1981 Decided December 3, 1968; 75Da120 Decided May 27, 1975; 80Da584 Decided December 9, 198; 93Da32354 Decided October 12, 193; 94Da4967 Decided June 24, 1994; 98Da6600 Decided 60 Decided 22, 1999.