The defects of the power of attorney in the first instance court and implied ratification by the appellate court's attorney;

Litigation by a legal representative in the first instance court, which was conducted by a legal representative who has not been authorized to represent a clan, has no effect, but in case where the legal representative entrusted by the legitimate representative of a clan made a pleading such as the statement of the result of pleadings in the first instance court for the appellate time, the litigation in the first instance court shall be deemed to have been ratified implicitly.

Article 88 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da60 delivered on July 24, 1973 delivered on September 8, 1964, 80Da2534 Delivered on July 28, 1981

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonju Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na3533 delivered on May 13, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful in the case where the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant's non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5 (hereinafter the above five persons shall apply) on the ground that the joint representative of the defendant's clan is the non-party 5, and the lawsuit of this case was brought by the court of first instance on July 18, 1986. When the original copy of the judgment was served to the attorney of the defendant's clan on August 5, 1986, the defendant filed the appeal of this case on August 19, 1986, because the representative of the defendant's clan was in the non-party 6, the representative of the defendant's clan from the time before the lawsuit of this case was brought, and the above five persons are not the legitimate representative of the defendant's clan, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit with the above five persons

However, according to the records, it is evident that the defendant's attorney delegated to the court below by non-party 6 of the representative of the defendant among the defendant's defendant's defendant defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's representative has presented arguments on the merits, such as the petition of appeal stating that "the plaintiff's claim is revoked." The plaintiff

As determined by the court below, if the legitimate representative of the defendant race 6 is the above non-party 6, the litigation at the court of first instance by the attorney at the court of first instance shall be conducted by the attorney delegated by the non-competent representative of the defendant race 6, and it shall be null and void. However, when the court below made a pleading, such as the attorney entrusted by the above non-party 6, who is the legitimate representative of the defendant race 6, stated the result of the pleading at the court of first instance, and thereby, the litigation at the court of first instance shall be deemed ratified implicitly. Even if the plaintiff appointed the above five persons as co-representative of the defendant race 6, and then there was no change in the legitimate representative, so long as the litigation at the court of first instance was ratified by the attorney at the court of first instance who is the legitimate representative of the defendant race 6, the court below should have deliberated and judged the representative of the defendant race 6 as the above non-party 6

As the court below did not reach this conclusion and dismissed the lawsuit of this case against the legitimate representative among the defendant's race, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the ratification of procedural acts, and the ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)