Whether the court is obligated to deliberate and investigate the legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal status in a case where there are some doubtful circumstances by already submitted data (affirmative)

In a case where a juristic person is a party, whether the representative of the juristic person has legitimate power of representation or not is related to the requirements of lawsuit, and thus, it is subject to the court's ex officio investigation. Thus, even if the court did not have any duty to detect the facts and evidence which are the basic data of the judgment ex officio, if the already submitted materials reveal circumstances that are doubtful about the legality of the power of representation, the other party is obligated to examine and investigate such materials even if the other

Articles 60 and 265 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na18283 delivered on August 21, 1996

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The litigation costs are assessed against the non-party 1 who instituted the lawsuit by referring to the representative of the plaintiff.

In a case where a juristic person is a party, whether the representative of the juristic person has legitimate power of representation is related to the requirements of the lawsuit and is subject to ex officio investigation by the court. Thus, even if the court does not have the duty to detect the facts and evidence, which are the basic data of the judgment, ex officio, if the already submitted materials reveal situations that are likely to doubt the legality of the power of representation, the other party has the duty to examine and investigate them even if the other party does not specifically point out them.

Upon examination of records, the plaintiff is obvious that it is dissolved by the ruling of dissolution order of the Yeongdeungpo Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court on February 15, 1976 (Records 161-162). In the event that a stock company is dissolved by an order of dissolution or a judgment of a court, the court shall appoint a liquidator at the request of an officer or other interested person or a prosecutor or ex officio (Article 252(1) of the Commercial Act applies mutatis mutandis), and in the case of a liquidation corporation, only the liquidator of the company shall execute the liquidation affairs of the company and represent the company in lieu of the director.

However, according to the records, the non-party 1 who filed a lawsuit with the representative liquidator of the plaintiff is not a person appointed by the court according to the above procedure, but a person appointed as a representative liquidator on June 4, 1992 with the non-party 2 at the provisional general meeting of shareholders on the same day and appointed as a representative liquidator at the liquidators' meeting on the same day. Thus, the above non-party 1 cannot be deemed to have a legitimate representative authority to represent the plaintiff (According to the records, the non-party 3 was appointed at the provisional general meeting of shareholders after the closing of argument of the court below as the plaintiff's liquidator, and confirmed the above non-party 1's procedural acts at the provisional general meeting of shareholders and submitted a written application for dismissal to the court. However, the above non-party 3 is also a person who has no authority to represent the plaintiff, and thus the above non-party 3 is not a person appointed pursuant to the above legitimate procedure and thus has no authority to represent the plaintiff. Accordingly, the above non-party 1's petition for ratification or dismissal

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's power of representation, and dismissed the defendant's appeal by citing the plaintiff's claim. Thus, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient to see the party members. Thus, as seen earlier, the non-party 1 who filed the lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed to have the power of representation of the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the lawsuit of this case by excluding this, and the judgment of the court of first instance which entered the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the non-party 1 who filed the lawsuit by referring

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)