The validity of an agreement in which a person other than an attorney-at-law agrees to have a part of the subject matter of lawsuit transferred from a party to the lawsuit in return (negative)

A, who is not an attorney-at-law, and B, who is a party to a civil lawsuit, shall win B with respect to the civil case in which B becomes a party to the lawsuit, and B, in case where B, in return for the share of forest and field, which is a part of the subject matter of the lawsuit, agreed to transfer to A in return, the said agreement is null and void as an anti-social legal act in violation of Article 78

Article 78 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Lee Jong-Jin Law Firm et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 88Na6273 delivered on April 4, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that since the transfer registration of ownership transfer completed in the name of the defendant from the plaintiff as to the share of the forest land of this case was made by the method of intermediate omission registration, based on the transfer agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the defendant, and the above transfer agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 is that the non-party 1, who is not the attorney-at-law, won the plaintiff with respect to the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration filed against the plaintiff against the plaintiff, and the right to receive the price from the plaintiff, the transfer registration in the name of the defendant is null and void as an anti-social legal act in violation of Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act, which is a mandatory law, on the ground that the transfer agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 is valid.

Under the facts established by the court below, the above determination is justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1802 delivered on April 28, 1987).

The theory of lawsuit is based on the premise that the plaintiff and the defendant sell and purchase the above real estate directly and the non-party 1 act on behalf of the plaintiff, but this is different from the facts recognized by the court below, so the argument of mistake of facts due to the mistake of facts by the rules of evidence is nothing more than 10. The argument is groundless

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)