In the pleading protocol, there is no statement that only both of the representatives of the parties was absent and that both of the parties was absent, and that there is no so-called two parties under Article 241(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the pleading protocol, the fact that both parties did not appear on the date of pleading shall not be deemed to have been proven in the protocol, unless the parties appear on the date of pleading, and the fact that both parties did not appear on the date of pleading.

Articles 141 and 147 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Jong-chul

The Association of Refugees and Refugees in the Yellow Sea Islands

Seoul High Court Decision 63Na240 decided November 18, 1964

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that compliance with the provisions on the method of pleading shall be proved only by the statement in the pleading protocol, and the facts that the parties were present on the date of pleading shall be proved only if there is no indication that the parties or their legal representatives were present on the date of pleading, unless there is an indication in the pleading protocol that the parties were present on the date of pleading, and if there is an attorney appointed by both parties other than the parties in order to revert the effects of disadvantage due to the absence of the parties on the date of pleading, the parties themselves and their legal representatives shall not be present on the date of pleading. In such a case, the facts that the parties did not appear on the date of pleading are not specified in the pleading protocol, but on the other hand, if the parties were absent on the date of pleading, the fact that the parties did not appear on the date of pleading cannot be deemed to have proved on the date of pleading, and the original judgment concluded that the parties did not appear on the date of pleading on two occasions, and therefore, the court below concluded that the parties did not appear on the date of pleading of both parties.

However, according to the second written argument of the court below, it is clear that the case at 1963.10 am and the parties are absent, and that it is not indicated that the representative of the plaintiff himself Kim Jong-dong and the defendant Seo-do Refugee Association was absent, and it is not indicated that the representative of the plaintiff himself Kim Jong-chul and the defendant Seo-do Refugee Association was absent. The so-called parties referred to in Paragraph 1 of Article 241 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot prove facts that the so-called parties cannot be present at the date of pleading, and the facts that both parties are absent at 1963,10,230 am are not present at 10 am and 10,000 am are not present at 196 am. Even if there is no absence of both parties on June 10, 1964, the court below should have determined that the defendant's second written argument was not withdrawn from 160 am and it can be viewed that the defendant's second written argument was not withdrawn from 16016 am.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman