1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on June 3, 2018 as deeming the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s appeal.

2. After filing an application for designation of the date.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of recognition:

The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance on July 18, 2017.

B. On March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff was not present at all on the date of first pleading and the date of second pleading on May 2, 2018. The Defendants’ legal representatives were present on each of the said dates, but did not present at all on each of the said dates, and did not present at all.

C. After that, on November 21, 2018, after one month from the date of the second pleading, the Plaintiff submitted an application for designation of the date to this court.

Accordingly, this court designated and notified the third date for pleading as 14:40 on December 19, 2018, and the plaintiff was present on the said date.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 408 and 268(1) and 268(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, where both parties to an appellate trial have failed to appear or present at the meeting on two occasions during the period of the appellate trial, if both parties have failed to appear or present at the meeting, an application for designating the date shall be filed within one month, and if no application for designating the date has been

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was absent from office on the date of pleading 1 and 2 at the court of the first instance upon receipt of the notice of legitimate date, and the Defendants’ legal representatives present on each of the above dates of pleading were not present, and the Plaintiff did not file an application for designation of date within one month from May 2, 2018, which is the second date of pleading. Thus, the instant lawsuit was concluded as the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 3, 2018, which is the second date of pleading 2018.

C. The deemed withdrawal of an appeal is legally effective as a matter of course due to the fulfillment of the above requirements, and thus cannot be determined by the court or the parties’ intent, and even if the parties’ intent to perform the litigation cannot be denied, and it cannot be arbitrarily handled in accordance with the court’s discretion, the content of the litigation, and the progress (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da94, Oct. 12, 1982).