Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, provided that an absentee administrator does not obtain the permission of a court, a judicial compromise and a civil lawsuit.

Any judicial compromise made by an absentee property administrator without obtaining permission from the court shall become a cause for a retrial, and the lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within 30 days from the date on which the cause thereof is known

Article 22(118) of the Civil Act; Article 25 of the Civil Act; Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Seoul Free Trade Association

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3656 delivered on August 8, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

If an administrator of an absentee under Article 22 of the Civil Code commits an act beyond the authority stipulated in Article 118 of the same Act, the permission of the court shall be obtained pursuant to Article 25 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the court settlement in this case, which the administrator of the plaintiff did not obtain the permission of the court, falls under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the lawsuit for retrial on the above settlement can be filed within 30 days from the date on which the plaintiff becomes aware of the reasons for retrial pursuant to Article 426 of the same Act, and Article 427 of the same Act does not apply to this case.

The reason is that the above Article 426 and Article 427 are replaced by the above Article 427 can be interpreted as excluding the case where there is a defect in the authorization necessary for an act of litigation, and in substance, there is a reason to distinguish between the case where a legal representative conducts an act of litigation without obtaining a special authorization and its effect. In this case, in December 14, 1953, the fact that the administrator of the plaintiff's estate in this case was lawfully determined by the court below that the plaintiff's estate administrator had knowledge of the cause for a retrial at the time of the settlement of this case is obvious by the records of this case, which is the case where the period for a retrial has already lapsed. Thus, the court below's rejection of a lawsuit for retrial has been justified and the judgment of the court of first instance has been maintained by the same opinion. The dissenting opinion is that the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit for retrial, constitutes a ground for a retrial under Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong and Ma-dong, Woo-hee and Woo-hee