In the lawsuit of property dispute concerning education, the representative of the local government, which is the defendants, shall be designated as the Do Governor and the lawsuit is conducted without changing it: Provided, That in the second instance, the lawsuit was conducted by the person who is delegated the power of attorney from the legitimate representative, such as the superintendent of the district office of education, etc., and each representative of the defendants is deemed to be

In the complaint of the property dispute case concerning education, the plaintiff expressed the representative of the defendant Chungcheongnam-do branch as the head of the Gun, and in the first instance court, the lawsuit was conducted by the attorney entrusted by the head of the branch office and the head of the Gun, and no change was made thereafter, even if the lawsuit was made in the second instance court, if the defendant's legitimate representative was followed by the education committee of Chungcheongnam-do and the attorney entrusted by the head of the education center of Chungcheongnam-do and the head of the education center of Chungcheongnam-do and the defendant's legal representative who was delegated by the head of the education center of the education center of the 2nd instance court, and there was a pleading such as the use of the result of the judgment in the first instance court, the defendant's objection in the first instance and the second instance court is no change in the number of the local government of Chungcheong-do and

Article 33-2 of the Education Act, Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-sub, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Chungcheongnam-do et al. and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1602 delivered on March 31, 1976

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the provisions of the Education Act, the education committee and the head of the district office of education shall represent the local government concerned with respect to the education, art and science of the Do or Gun, which are the local government, and the superintendent of the district office of education shall represent the relevant education committee. According to the records, when the plaintiff seeks cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, etc. on the ground that the plaintiff is the registration of invalidity of the cause in this case, the original real estate is the registration of invalidity of the cause in this case, and it is obvious that all of the original real estate is the land used as the school building site or the practice site, and therefore, it is not the branch office or the head of the district office of education and the head of the district office

However, in the court of first instance, the plaintiff expressed the representative of the defendant Chungcheongnam-do branch as the head of Gun, and the lawsuit was conducted by the attorney entrusted with the lawsuit from the head of the branch office and the head of the Gun, but it is apparent that the lawsuit was conducted by the education committee of the defendant Chungcheongnam-do and the head of the office of education of the defendant Chungcheongnam-do and the attorney entrusted with the lawsuit from the head of the office of education of the defendant Chungcheongnam-do for the second instance. Thus, the defendant in this case at the court of first instance or the second instance is without any change in the court of first instance and the court of second instance, and the lawsuit was conducted by the attorney entrusted with the lawsuit from the local government without the authority to represent the defendants. However, since the court of first instance did not establish the lawsuit by the attorney entrusted with the lawsuit from the legitimate representative of the defendants, it is reasonable to view that there was no illegality in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendants' act of litigation or the judgment of the court of first instance after the change of the court's authority of education as the plaintiff's new lawsuit.

2. The second ground of appeal is examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant Chungcheongnam-do purchased from the plaintiff on May 29, 1945 that the above real estate was originally divided from 8 Maeng 2, 8 Maeng 2, 1945, which was originally owned by the plaintiff, by taking full account of the evidences of this city. The court below's finding of facts by comparing each evidence presented by the court below is just and it cannot be found that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence. The court below's finding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and it is not possible to conclude that the above real estate was divided after May 1, 195, 195, the restoration date, and 4 Maeng 3, 198, and that the above real estate was purchased from 8 Maeng 2, 1945.

3. Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)