Effect of the Agreement Withdrawal of Appeal

If there is an agreement that can be seen as a contract to withdraw an appeal, such an appeal shall be dismissed as it is unlawful.

Articles 363 and 360 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap7778) in the first instance trial

The defendants' objection is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Plaintiff, Defendant 2, the Plaintiff, out of 47 square meters per 1 unit of the business office of the assessment house of the Pak-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (Land Number omitted), and Defendant 1 removed the above building. The Defendants delivered 100 square meters on the ship connected in the order of 100 square meters among the 113 square meters in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (Land Number omitted), and Defendant 2 paid 50,000 won per month from July 20, 1971 to the time of delivery of the above site.

The court costs are assessed against the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The defendants shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. Determination on the part of the appeal by Defendant 1

The plaintiff was subject to compulsory execution on the property of the defendants in accordance with the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the first instance judgment against which the provisional execution declaration was issued at the third date for pleading of the trial (19 January 19, 1973). The plaintiff suggested that the plaintiff would not object to the acts of the plaintiff conducted between the plaintiff and the defendants on October 8, 1972, and that the plaintiff would have agreed to withdraw the appeal filed by the defendants on August 18 of the same year. Thus, the defendant 1 had been served on the plaintiff on the same legal brief as the plaintiff was clearly recorded in the records, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff was not present on the date for pleading of January 19 of the same year without submitting a legal brief and other written response, so the defendant 1 should be deemed to have led to the confession of the above alleged facts of the plaintiff.

2. Determination on the part of the appeal by Defendant 2

On October 8, 1972, 1972, after the plaintiff received a favorable judgment with the judgment of winning the case where provisional execution was attached, the defendants agreed to cancel all legal relations. Accordingly, the defendants agreed to cancel all legal relations. In the case where the defendants' legal measures prior to the above agreement are appeals against the judgment of the court below, and it is not considered that they were to have taken measures to suspend the execution against the plaintiff's favorable judgment where provisional execution is separately attached, the agreement to cancel the legal relations of the above recognized defendants should be deemed to be a withdrawal contract of appeal, barring special circumstances.

3. If so, the defendants maintain the above-mentioned contract to withdraw an appeal and maintain the appeal as it is. Thus, this case's appeal is unlawful as it has no interest in appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Han Man-Shan (Presiding Judge) Lee Man-soon