(a) Cases which hold that an absentee's act of recognition and recognition without the permission of a court constitutes a defect in a special authorization of a representative;

(b) The period allowed for retrial on the grounds of defects in special authorization by an agent;

Article 422 (1) 3 of the same Act provides that "if an agent has any defect in the right of representation necessary for conducting procedural acts" does not include any ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the same Act. The act of recognition and recognition without the permission of a court by an absentee administrator constitutes a defect in the right of representation. Thus, a lawsuit for retrial on the ground of such reason shall not be filed after five years have elapsed since the completion of the report of recognition and acceptance.

Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na817 delivered on September 12, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na817 delivered on September 12, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

It shall be determined on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”).

The defect of the power of attorney under Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act does not include the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the same Act when an agent is defective in the power of attorney necessary to conduct procedural acts. As a result of the majority opinion of the party members' ruling, the original judgment was made against the defendant of the plaintiff (the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., who was the plaintiff et al.) on the ground of the defendant's request for retrial. However, the court's decision was made on September 7, 1952, which was the date of pleading of the Seoul District Court's short-term 4285 Seoul District Court's claim for the cancellation of trust contract as of September 15, 1952, which was the date of expiry of trust contract as of September 15, 1952, which was the defendant's administrator at the Seoul District Court's legal representative at the time when the defendant's claim was accepted by the non-party who was the defendant's legal representative.

Although the above non-party was required to obtain such permission, that is, his or her person.

A statement of recognition by acceptance was that the legal representative's power of representation could not be revoked due to the defect.

As to the argument, it is reasonable that the reason for the argument was the deficiency of the representative's special authorization, that is, the request for a retrial based on the reason should be filed at the latest within five years after the completion of the protocol of recognition and recognition, and that the lawsuit for retrial brought on October 17, 1967 was dismissed. Thus, it is reasonable to view the above opposing opinion, and it is not reasonable to discuss the contents of the above ruling in the original judgment.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong and Ma-dong Na-Gyeong