Resignation of an attorney and the absence of his/her principal

When the oral pleading date is delivered to the attorney, if the representative submits a resignation on the relevant date and he/she is also absent, the court may decide after hearing the oral argument by the other party.

Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Act

Records of Ethicals

Attorney Lee Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 52 civilian 231 delivered on September 11, 1952

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The ground of appeal by the defendant representative, which was stated in the judgment of the court of first instance in the original trial, acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased the house of this case from the non-party opposite to the non-party opposite to the judgment of the court of first instance, but the defendant, in the oral argument of the court of first instance on December 6, 4284, denied the sale and purchase between the party opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the opposite to the defendant,

However, based on the case record, since the defendant was an attorney Kim Dong-jin on behalf of the defendant, and was prosecuted at the court below on May 30, 4285 at a short time, the court below set the date of the first two-time pleadings as 9:00 a.m. on August 7, 4285, and served it on the defendant's agent on the date of the first two-time trip, and the agent submitted an application for the change of the date. Accordingly, the court below decided that the above date was changed to 9:0 p.m. on August 7, 28, 200, and then the agent sent it on the same date to the defendant's agent at the same time, and it is clear that the agent was forced to voluntarily resign on the same date without sending it on that date, and it was found that the court below made a decision by the plaintiff's agent without sending it on that date. Thus, it is not possible to discuss the fact that the defendant's opportunity to prove was unfairly raised. Accordingly, Article 905 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be criticized.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)