The effect of withdrawal of a lawsuit made by the former representative before notifying the other party of such fact after the representative loses his/her power of representation (effective).

The purport of Articles 60 and 59(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is to ensure stability and clarity in litigation procedures by uniformly treating the extinguishment of power of representation, regardless of whether or not the parties knew of the extinguishment of power of representation, or whether or not there was any negligence in the process, even if the representative of a juristic person has been extinguished, unless there exist any special circumstances, the said power of representation shall be deemed not extinguished until the notification thereof is made. Thus, even in a case where the representative of a juristic person has been extinguished, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the said power of representation has not been extinguished in the litigation procedures. Therefore, it shall be deemed as valid when the former representative was reappointed without the notification of the extinguishment of power of representation, and it shall not be deemed that the other party knew of the extinguishment

Articles 59(1) and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da791 delivered on July 4, 1967 (defluence), Supreme Court Decision 66Nu174 delivered on November 28, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1629 delivered on December 17, 1968 (No. 16-3, 292), Supreme Court Decision 68Da1629 delivered on December 17, 1968 (No. 16-3, 292), Supreme Court Decision 70Da1593 Delivered on September 29, 197 (No. 18-3, 141), Supreme Court Decision 76Da1829 delivered on December 11, 197 (Gong1980, 12413), Supreme Court Decision 9Da16549 delivered on December 15, 195 (No. 1965, Apr. 19, 195).

1. The term "public interest" means the public interest or the private interest or the private interest or the private interest or the private interest or the private interest or private interest

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na32448 delivered on November 2, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Articles 60 and 59(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provide that even if the representative’s power of representation of a corporation (including an unincorporated association; hereinafter the same shall apply) has ceased to exist, it shall not be effective unless the other party is notified thereof. The purport of this provision is that even if the representative’s power of representation has ceased to exist, it shall be uniformly dealt with whether the party was aware of the extinguishment of the representative’s power of representation, and whether there was any negligence or not, regardless of whether there was any negligence or not, thereby ensuring the stability and clarity of the litigation procedures

Therefore, even in cases where the power of representation of a juristic person has been extinguished, the said power of representation shall not be deemed extinguished in the litigation proceedings unless there are other special circumstances, so it shall be deemed that the said power of representation has not been extinguished in the absence of a notification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Nu174, Nov. 28, 1967; 68Nu1629, Dec. 17, 1968; 70Da1593, Sept. 29, 197; 76Da1829, Dec. 11, 1979; 94Da49311, Feb. 28, 1995).

Unlike the above opinion, Articles 60 and 59 of the Civil Procedure Act apply only to litigation conducted by the other party, and Article 60 and Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to withdrawal of lawsuit, which is a sole act against the court of a person whose power of representation has already been lost. Thus, the opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 67Da791 Decided July 4, 1967, which held that the person who prepared the written withdrawal before submitting the written withdrawal to the court, has no effect of its establishment, is not disqualified

In the same purport, even if the non-party, who was the chairperson of the non-corporate clan, lost his/her power of representation by resignation on July 31, 1993, the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case is justifiable in accordance with the above legal principles, unless there is any evidence to prove that the non-party, who was the chairperson of the non-corporate clan, lost his/her power of representation on the resignation of the chairperson on November 9 of the same year, unless it is proved that the non-party, who was the other party, notified the defendant of the extinguishment of the non-party's power of representation

On the second ground for appeal

The court below pointed out that the non-party, who was the chairperson of the plaintiff clan, was disqualified for the representative authority of the plaintiff clan and transferred the corporation to the defendant, or withdrawn the lawsuit of this case with the defendant for the purpose of taking part in the defendant or for joining the defendant, is null and void in violation of the good faith principle under the Civil Procedure Act. However, in light of the records, the data submitted by the plaintiff clan is insufficient to recognize it, and unless there is no other evidence to recognize it, the legitimacy

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices on the bench.

1. As to the ground of appeal pointing this out, the ground of appeal pointing this out is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench who reviewed the appeal pointing this out.