(a) Even if an act of litigation in violation of Article 16 of the Attorney-at-Law is an act of unauthorized Representation, it shall take effect if ratification is made.

(b) It shall not be disposed of unless the legal superficies under customary laws are registered.

(a) Even if a procedural act is an act of unauthorized Representation pursuant to Article 16 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 63 of November 7, 49), it shall be effective if it is ratified.

(b) It shall not be disposed of unless the legal superficies under customary laws are registered.

Article 16 of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 366 of the Civil Act; Article 187 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 69Na415 delivered on March 23, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the Defendant’s ground of appeal

1. In a separate lawsuit against the removal of the building in this case, the legal act by a person who was the defendant's legal representative in the separate lawsuit against the removal of the building in this case was conducted as the plaintiff's legal representative as the other party to the above defendant's lawsuit against the above defendant's act in violation of Article 16 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, even though the court below's approval of the act of non-exclusive legal representative at the court below is obvious in the records, and such legal act shall take full effect under the Civil Procedure Act, and the decision of the court below

2. According to the original judgment and the records, in recognizing that the building site was constructed on the above building site as the plaintiff's ownership, the process and contents of the evidence cooking, which had been followed by the records, should be reviewed by the records, and there is no error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to issue an appeal to the effect that the value judgment on the evidence is contrary to the original judgment, and on this premise, that there is no legitimate action in the original judgment.

3. According to the defendant's argument in this case, the owner of a building naturally acquires legal superficies by so-called custom on the land unless there is a condition that the owner of the building will remove the building, even though it belongs to the same owner's ownership, and if the owner of the building becomes different from the other owner of the building, the owner of the building shall not dispose of the superficies unless the legal superficies is registered. Thus, according to the defendant's argument in this case, although the building site and the building were owned by the non-party 1, it was originally owned by the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 purchased the above building from the non-party 2 by purchasing the above building from the non-party 2 on March 5, 1963, and the above building acquired by succession the above legal superficies. In this case, the non-party 2 did not complete the registration of the superficies and did not have completed the registration of the superficies, the above defendant's assertion on the acquisition of the superficies is without merit, and even if there is no special circumstance, it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in its judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)