beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
(1) The 3rd parallel 23 to 4th parallel 16th parallel are as follows:
2. The Defendant asserts that the instant appeal was withdrawn and the instant lawsuit was terminated on April 11, 2016, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal of appeal in this case on April 11, 2016; and (b) the said written withdrawal of appeal stated “2016Nu3739, the instant number, as the case number, and “the Plaintiff (Appellant) A, the Defendant (Appellant)” as the party indication.
Unlike the act in general private law, the act of litigation against the plaintiff's court to extinguish the continuation of the lawsuit by withdrawing the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, and the act of litigation is bound to determine whether it is effective on the basis of the indication rather than the intention in the internal trial.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da11740 delivered on October 24, 1997. On the other hand, the interpretation of procedural acts, such as the non-appeal agreement, unlike the legal acts under the substantive law, shall not be contrary to or contradictory to the contents indicated, and shall be based on the thorough indication principle and externalism, which are not the internal intent, and shall not be contrary to or contradictory to the contents indicated. However, considering the purpose of the litigation system in question and the necessity of remedying rights of the parties, it is necessary to consider the whole allegations of the parties to the litigation and to interpret objective and rational procedural acts in consideration of the intent of the parties who conduct the litigation in question. Accordingly, the interpretation of the parties’ intent with respect to procedural acts, the interests of which are extreme depending on the determination of the existence of the agreement, such as the non-appeal agreement, is unclear.