The instant lawsuit was concluded on February 5, 2016 by the special representative of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) as the withdrawal of the appeal.

. Termination of the proceedings;

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Where there is no representative of a juristic person or an association which is not a juristic person, or where the representative is practically or legally unable to exercise his/her power of representation, a special representative appointed pursuant to Article 62 of the Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 64 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 13952, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter “Act”) in cases where the progress of litigation is considerably obstructed by exercising the power of representation, the special representative appointed pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 13952, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter “the Act”), who has the same authority as the representative of an association which is not a juristic person or an association which is not a juristic person, may conduct all procedural acts concerning the performance of litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5373, Jun. 10, 201).

2. On October 21, 2015, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) was appointed as a special agent with respect to the instant lawsuit upon the Defendant’s application. After that, the lower court appeared on November 13, 2015 and stated that the Plaintiff’s legal representative ratified all the existing procedural acts on the fourth date for pleading, and the lower court rendered the judgment on January 15, 2016 after closing the pleadings on the same day, and the fact that India submitted a petition of final appeal to the lower court on January 29, 2016 and submitted the written withdrawal of final appeal to the lower court on February 5, 2016 is apparent in the record.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the appeal filed by the special agent under the Plaintiff’s Litigation Act was in effect at the first time, the instant lawsuit was concluded at the lower court as the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the said special agent thereafter.

In examining the record, it cannot be deemed that AF was a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff at the time of withdrawal of the appeal, and the instant lawsuit has already been filed.