Cases falling under the grounds for restrictions on review under the proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

If the defendant asserted as the ground of appeal before the confirmation of the case that the representative's power of representation among the plaintiff's species is defective, the defendant cannot file a lawsuit for retrial on such ground.

The proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jong-sung Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant (Attorney Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na11 delivered on October 21, 1977

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

(1) Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the defendant's first ground for retrial is the case where the non-party without any authority to represent the plaintiff's clan of this case, which is subject to the review of the issue. This constitutes a case of Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, pursuant to the proviso of Article 422(1) of the same Act, the case where the party asserted or did not know the ground by appeal. However, according to the statement of 19-3 of evidence No. 19-3 and 5 of the defendant's submission of the Reasons for Appeal No. 20 of February 20, 788, it is acknowledged that the defendant had no authority to represent the above non-party as the ground for appeal prior to the confirmation of the case, and thus, it is clear that the defendant cannot file a retrial. Accordingly, the ground for appeal Nos. 1-7 of this part of this case, which was submitted, cannot be accepted under the premise that the defendant's ground for retrial is lack of evidence and evidence.

(2) Next, since the court below compared the records on the second grounds alleged by the defendant as grounds for retrial, we agree with the dispositions of the court below, and there is no unlawful evidence. Nos. 21, 22-1, and 2 are altered together with the name of the forest in which the non-party, who is the plaintiff's representative, was equipped with the name of the 4th degree of the defendant's forest in the location of thecheon-dong Branch Office of Seongdong-gu, Seoul Prosecutors' Office, and there was some relevant suspect's statement in this case. The court below rejected the court below's explanation on the ground that it violated the rules of evidence, but it was just the exclusive authority of the court below, and it is not necessary to believe and believe such evidence, barring any special circumstances, it is not clear that the non-party, as the plaintiff's representative, was modified with the name of the forest in which the 2nd degree of the defendant's 4th degree of the defendant's forest, and it is not clear that the 2nd witness's own opinion and the 2th witness's statement cannot be accepted.

We cannot accept the ground of appeal No. 9 as it is merely an error of the full power of the fact-finding court.

Therefore, the defendant's grounds for retrial are without merit, and therefore the judgment of dismissal is reasonable, and the appeal is without merit, and 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 Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)