(a) Litigations in the capacity of a managing director of a stock company (limited liability company) shall be effective even if directors are not registered.

B. The effective date of the withdrawal of a claim for an appeal filed and received by the withdrawal prior to the submission of the other party’s reply is the time of receipt of the written withdrawal.

(c) In civil procedure, the withdrawal of a lawsuit or appeal may not be cancelled on the ground that it is a defective declaration of intention or an expression of intent due to mistake.

(a) Litigations conducted in the capacity of the managing director of a stock company shall be effective even if they are not registered as directors;

(b) No cancellation may be made on the grounds that the withdrawal of a lawsuit or appeal is a defective declaration of intent or an expression of intent due to mistake in the civil procedure.

(c) The effective date of withdrawal of a request for invalidation of a patent filed and received by the withdrawal prior to the submission of the other party’s reply shall be the time of receipt of the written withdrawal.

Article 395 of the Commercial Act; Article 567 of the Commercial Act; Article 110 of the Patent Act; Article 118 of the Patent Act; Article 120 of the Patent Act; Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 109 of the Civil Act; Article 110 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da92 Delivered on September 15, 1964

Korea Lew Industries Corporation

Japan Tret Industries Corporation

Park Sil-Jin metal

Patent Country

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 by the claimant shall be examined.

However, the theory of lawsuit first, it is invalid that the non-party 1, the managing director of the company which made a request for judgment, transfers part of the exclusive license of this case to the non-party 2, who is the president of the company which made a request for judgment, without the consent of the representative agency of the company which made a request for judgment, as an act of a non-authorized person, which is to be taken by the non-party 1, although the non-party 1, who is the managing director of the company which made a request for judgment, asserts that the withdrawal of the request for judgment of appeal of this case, is null and void. However, even if the non-party 1, who is the managing director of the company which made a request for judgment, did not have any authority to represent the company which made a request for judgment, it is merely an internal circumstance of the company which made a request for judgment, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who made a request for judgment of this case, can not be seen as withdrawal of the lawsuit of this case under the Civil Procedure Act, unless the other party's request for judgment is justified.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, considering the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 1 through No. 7, which is cited in the judgment that the withdrawal of the original adjudication in this case was submitted by the other party to the criminal offense or by the third party's fraud (which appears to be the crime of fraud) or other acts, the judgment of the court below is legitimate and contrary to the rules of evidence, and the part of the judgment below is that even if the withdrawal was made by deception as seen earlier, the withdrawal of the withdrawal cannot be made on the ground of such defect, and it is not justified and incomplete.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)