(a) the court's measures where there is a dispute over the establishment and validity of the withdrawal of the action;

B. Whether the principle of validity of an anti-social order or unfair legal act applies to the withdrawal of a lawsuit (negative)

A. If there is a dispute between the parties in regard to the procedural acts of withdrawal of a lawsuit, this is a matter of whether the lawsuit is pending, and the court should declare that the withdrawal has been completed as an effective withdrawal, since it is necessary to resolve it.

B. The withdrawal of a lawsuit is a procedural act against the court of a party, and the provisions on a legal act under the Civil Act cannot be applied unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act, Articles 239 and 240 of the Civil Procedure Act

1. Supreme Court Decision 4294Da809 delivered on April 26, 1962 (Article 240(5)497 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 240(5)4297 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 56-1027 of the Civil Procedure Act, Supreme Court Decision 64Da92 delivered on September 15, 1964 (Article 109(13)158 Kada8120 collected on September 15, 1964 (Article 109(13)13), Article 66Ma1258 delivered on January 27, 1967 (Article 103(41)127 Ka7617 of the Civil Act)

Lee & Lee In-won et al.

No. 29 others

1. The lawsuit of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant Jin case, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the central flag, the fluor, the fluor, the salt fluor, the fluorite, the salt interference, the salt fluor, and the foundation court in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, the Daejeon-gu Office of the foundation, the maintenance foundation of the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the fluore flag, the brue house, the fluore house, the fluor, the Korean flag, and the livestock industry cooperatives of the flu

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Kim Un-un, Lee Jong-ok, Lee Jong-ok, Lee Jong-chul, Lee's Lee's Lee, Lee Dong-young, Lee Dong-chul, Lee Dong-chul, Lee Jong-hee, Lee Jong-hee, Lee

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 3 shall be cancelled; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 4; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 2; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 4; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 2; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 3; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 4; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 2; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 47; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 47; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 47; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 47; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 97; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 2, the registration of transfer of ownership No. 4; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1, 4715; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1,970; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1,570; the registration of transfer of ownership No. 1,67. ; the registration of ownership No. 1,

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. First of all, we examine whether or not the plaintiffs' actions against the defendant Gangseo-gu, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the central flag, the fluor, the salt fluor, the salt fluor, the salt interference, the salt fluor, the foundation's foundation's maintenance foundation, the national flag, the national flag, the national flag, the overlaps, the national flag, the lelebs, the lebsn, the lebsium, the lebsium, the lebsium, the lebsium, the leb

Comprehensively taking account of the testimony of the above witness Eul evidence Nos. 5 (Agreement) and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (Dismissal), each of which is recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of the above witness Kim Jong-soo's testimony bound in the records, the plaintiff Lee Jin-jin and Lee Jin-jin were delegated with comprehensive authority over the filing and performance of the lawsuit in this case from the plaintiff Lee Jin-jin, Lee Jin-jin, and Lee Jin-jin entrusted with general authority over the filing and settlement of the lawsuit in this case, and had appointed a lawyer to conduct the lawsuit in this case. On June 30, 1987, the above defendants paid 10,000,000 won from the above defendants to withdraw the lawsuit about the remaining real estate except for the real estate No. 2 in the attached list No. 2 against the above defendants. Accordingly, the above plaintiff Lee Jin-jin and Lee J-jin prepared the above statement to the effect that the plaintiff and the above defendant Lee Jae-jin were the remaining plaintiffs's legal representative on behalf of the defendant.

However, the plaintiffs' legal representative asserted that the defendants actively included in the act of forging-do's fabrication of private documents, which is null and void in violation of social order, and that the market price of the remaining real estate except for the real estate No. 2 in the attached Table No. 2 in the attached Table No. 1990,000 is not less than 20,000 won, and that the non-party Hong Hong was withdrawn as above, and that the act of withdrawal is null and void as an unfair legal act, barring any special circumstance, since the provisions concerning legal acts under the Civil Act cannot be applied as a litigation act against the court of the parties, the plaintiffs' legal representative's above assertion is groundless.

2. Next, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Kim Young-ok, Lee Jong-ok, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Lee, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Lee, Lee Won-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young. The registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of Lee Jong-young as of February 9, 1956, the Daejeon District Court No. 11072 of the receipt on December 4, 1970, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of Lee Jong-young-young's 1072. The above facts are without dispute among the parties. On the other hand, the above facts are as follows: Lee Jong-young's 3 evidence, Lee Jong-young's 1 (each certified copy of the above 194), Lee Jong-jin's 1 (the plaintiff Lee Jong-jin's 1, the 1961, the plaintiff Lee Jong-jin's 1, the 1961, the plaintiff Lee Jong-jin-jin-jin's's 15).

However, the above defendants' legal representative asserts that the above defendants' interest, which is the owner of the above defendants, purchased this case's real estate through Lee Jong-young, and that the transfer registration made under the name of the above interest is effective registration consistent with the substantive rights. Thus, considering the above Eul's evidence Nos. 2 (sales Contract) which is acknowledged to be genuine by the witness Lee Jong-young's testimony, the above witness Lee Jong-jin's testimony and Lee Jin's testimony during the 625 Incident, the above Lee Jin-jin's Lee's transfer registration was not known as the plaintiffs' death and life were unknown at the time of the above 625 Incident, and the plaintiffs' interest source who was responsible for the above plaintiffs' livelihood at the time of the above Lee Jin-jin's living was not able to purchase the above real estate in accordance with the above Lee Jong-jin's real property's ownership transfer registration, and the plaintiff's interest and the above real property's allegation that the above plaintiff's interest and the above real property were not known to the above plaintiff Lee Jong-jin-jin's interest and the above 26.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants in Paragraph 1 of this case was terminated on July 1, 1987. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants in Paragraph 2 of this case is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jung-hun (Presiding Judge)