The case holding that the party cannot be present on the date due to a cause not attributable to him.

Even if the Plaintiff’s legal representative has reached the court at the latest 4 p.m. time more than 2 p.m. designated as the date for pleading because the Plaintiff’s legal representative had a mooring case in other courts, it cannot be deemed as a delay in the time of appearance, and it cannot be deemed as a delay in the time of appearance on the above date due to any cause not attributable to the Plaintiff’s legal representative.

Article 241 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap4645) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment with respect to revocation of the original judgment and the defendant's payment of KRW 2,000,000 to the plaintiff and the provisional execution declaration

According to the records of this case, in the court below, the attorney Seo Jae-nam was served on March 7, 1974 a writ of summons on the 7th day of the court below's 14:00 on March 7, 1974, and the defendant's attorney was present on the 6th day of the court below's 7th day of pleading, and the defendant's attorney was notified of the above 7th day of pleading. The plaintiff's attorney was absent on the 7th day of pleading as both the plaintiff and his attorney, and the defendant and his attorney were absent on the 8th day of pleading, and again the plaintiff's attorney was notified of the 9th day of pleading as of April 25, 1974. The plaintiff and his attorney were absent on the 9th day of pleading, and the plaintiff and his attorney were present on the 9th day of pleading, and the fact that the defendant's attorney was not present but present on the 9th day of pleading.

The plaintiff's attorney asserts that there was a mooring case in the support of Incheon court on the 9th legal date for pleading, and that the trial of the above support was involved in the trial of the court below around 16:00 on that day, and that the time during which the court attendance was delayed due to unavoidable reasons, and that it was not absent

However, in the case of the above assertion by the plaintiff's legal representative, it cannot be deemed that the time of the court attendance is delayed, and there is no evidence to support this.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be deemed to have been withdrawn by the absence of both parties on April 25, 1974 at the 14:00, April 25, 1974, which is the 9th day for pleading of the court below, and the lawsuit has been terminated at that time. The judgment of the court of first instance that shares the same conclusion is just, and the appeal of this case is without merit, and the appeal of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff

Judges Doz. (Presiding Judge)