Cases recognized that neglect of date due to a party’s cause attributable to the party

Even though the defendant Gohap-gun was due to the fact that he was unable to attend on the date of pleading on December 3, 1975, 100 of this case and 10:00 each day of pleading on December 24, 1975 of this month due to the fact that he was unable to attend on the date of pleading from the Gyeongnam-do on December 1, 1975, pursuant to 91-315 of Gyeongnam-do, which was held from the 5th to the 26th day of this month, the defendant was unable to attend on the date of pleading, and the defendant was unable to appoint an attorney and let him attend on the date of pleading. Thus, the circumstance alone does not constitute "where a party fails to attend on the date of pleading on the date of pleading due to any cause not attributable to him" under Article 241 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 241 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1828 delivered on March 23, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1834 delivered on March 23, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 241(10)946 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

United Kingdom of America

Jinju Branch of Busan District Court (75 Gohap166)

On December 24, 1975, this case was concluded as the withdrawal of appeal.

The litigation costs after the request for the designation of a new date shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on December 6, 1953 with respect to the portion on the ship that connects the following points to the plaintiff in sequence on the 19th of 14th of 668 of 14th of 14th of 14th of 668,00 in the attached drawings indicating the attached drawings among the 13th of 669-13 to 213th of 669,000 Gohap-gun, Gohapcheon-gun, Gohap-gun, Gohap-gun, Gohap-gun, and each point of the subparagraphs. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

According to the records of this case, the defendant, who is the appellant on the date of the first pleading of 10:00 on December 3, 1975, and the second pleading of 10:00 on the date of the second pleading of 12.24.24.00 on the date of the second pleading of 1975, is not present, and the plaintiff is not present on each of the above dates of pleading, and the statement of pleading

Thus, this appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn under Article 378 and Article 241(2) of the Civil Procedure Act due to the neglect of the date for pleading two or more days by both parties.

However, the defendant's attorney was unable to appear on the date of pleading of December 24, 1975 due to the execution of Dooo-o-o-o1-315 of the Presidential Directive No. 40 and Eul-o-do's Doo-o-o-o-do's Gyeong-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-.

Therefore, the defendant's motion to designate the fixed date is without merit, and since the case is terminated as the defendant's withdrawal of appeal, the party member will make a final judgment to that effect, and as to the burden of litigation costs after the request to designate the fixed date, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)