"Deficiency of power of representation" under Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where there is no power of representation, so Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to the case where there is no power of representation, but there is a lack of special power of representation necessary for conducting procedural acts.

Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act

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

Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Defendant) 1 and one other

1. The case where the plaintiff and the plaintiff-appellant are involved;

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na3835 delivered on December 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where there is no power of representation, so Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to the case where there is no power of representation, and Article 427 of the above Act does not apply to the case where there is a lack of special power of representation necessary for conducting procedural acts (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Da584 delivered on December 9, 1980; 93Da32354 delivered on October 12, 1993).

From the same view, Article 427 of the above Article 427 does not apply to the quasi-examination of this case on the ground of the defects in the special authorization of the defendant (quasi-Appellant), and therefore, the court below is justified in holding that the lawsuit of quasi-adjudication of this case filed on January 12, 1993 by the defendant (quasi-Appellant) against August 13, 1990, which had been aware of the defects in the above special authorization, much more than 30 days, which is the peremptory term stipulated in Article 426 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, is unlawful.

In the case of limiting the power of the representative for the public interest purpose like the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act, unlike the case of legal relations based on judicial autonomy, it is not subject to the restriction of the period of filing a lawsuit for retrial as stipulated in Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act because it falls under the case of the absence of special power as stipulated in Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, this cannot be accepted as an independent opinion. There is no reason to argue.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)