(a) Service in cases where there are several administrators of absentees; and

(b) Legal relations in case where there is a absence of both parties, stating "extension" in the pleading protocol;

A. If several persons are appointed as an administrator of an absentee, notification of the date of pleading is sufficient by service on one of them.

B. As long as both parties are absent on the date of pleading commenced, the effect of the absence of both parties is already existing at that time, the statement in the pleading protocol, even though it was stated “extension”, shall have effect only on the party who was present or is unable to carry out the date, regardless of whether the pleading is separated or not.

Article 24 of the Civil Act, Articles 167 and 241 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 12 others

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na31 delivered on July 14, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal against Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5.

First, according to the judgment on appointment of an absentee administrator attached to the records of this case as to the part on which the first date for pleading of the court below is unlawful, since it is evident that three persons, such as the administrator 1, administrator 2, and administrator 3, were appointed by the administrator 1, administrator 2, and administrator 3, etc. of the plaintiff, the notification of the date to the plaintiff is sufficient by service to one of them, and the summons of the court below to the first date for pleading of the court below is not against the whole administrator , and it cannot be deemed unlawful as the commencement of the date for pleading of the court below

Next, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, as to the part that it was unlawful to treat the plaintiff's non-appearance after being written as postponement in the pleading protocol, the court below held that the plaintiff's appeal against the above Defendants was withdrawn twice due to non-appearance of both the parties concerned, since the plaintiff's administrator, defendant 1, defendant 3, and defendant 5 were duly summoned and did not appear at the court of Seoul High Court designated on March 28, 1974. The plaintiff's administrator, the above administrator of the plaintiff's first pleading, and the first pleading appointed after the above first pleading date, and the above defendants did not appear at the court of Seoul High Court designated on September 10, 1974.

The original date is when a case and a party's title are commenced, so long as both parties are absent at the time when both parties stand at the date for pleading, the effect of both parties' absence is already occurring, and even if the pleading protocol is postponed, in the case that does not have a necessary co-litigation relationship as in the instant case, such a statement has an effect only on the party who was present at the date for pleading or is unable to execute the date for pleading, and it does not bring about an effect of postponement between the parties who did not appear after being duly summoned and did not appear. Even if the first date for pleading is the date for pleading, as long as the court accepted the party's application for postponement and did not approve the change of the date for pleading, the court below's measure that the plaintiff's appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn by the second absence of both parties, and there is no violation of law

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments that criticize the judgment of the court below by pointing out these points.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s remaining Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff purchased the real estate in this case before August 15, and registered it in his name, but Defendant 1 registered it in his name without any title due to the incident of June 25, 200, and then transferred it to other Defendants on the basis of this, the registration in the name of the defendants shall be deemed to be null and void. Accordingly, the court below rejected all evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the registration in the name of the defendants shall not be deemed to have been lawfully prepared in light of other evidence shown in the records, and it is clear that the plaintiff's claim was rejected, in light of the records, it is just in all of the above measures of the court below, and it shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal nature of the farmland list or by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof as stated in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument from this point.

3. Accordingly, this appeal is without merit. The 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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)