[1] The meaning of a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Whether a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to a case where a judgment of constructive confession is rendered as a result of the delivery of a copy of the complaint and a writ of summons for pleading in the future by indicating the representative as a representative (affirmative)

[1] Grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act are not only cases where an unauthorized representative has actually conducted a procedural act on behalf of the principal, but also cases where the principal or his/her attorney was unable to conduct a substantive procedural act due to a lack of power of attorney.

[2] In a case where a lawsuit was filed by indicating the representative as a witness and a copy of the complaint and the summons of the date for pleading were served in the future, and the judgment of constructive confession was rendered due to the absence of the representative on the date for pleading, the above judgment of constructive confession was rendered on the grounds that the legitimate representative was not served with the writ of summons of the date for pleading, and thus, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[1] Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 422(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da259 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 551), Supreme Court Decision 92Da47632 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 677) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 75Da634 delivered on May 9, 1978 (Gong1978, 10826), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4549 delivered on December 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 629), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5774 delivered on May 31, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2012)

Plaintiff (Re-Defendant) (Attorney Ansan-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea F&C Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yang Young-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na7225 delivered on August 12, 1998

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (Defendant for retrial).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

The court below found the defendant's representative on July 24, 1992, when the defendant (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the defendant) was appointed by the president of the KIB as the inspector belonging to the KIB from December 29, 1962, and he was appointed as the chief of KIB. The non-party 1 was appointed as the chief of KIB and was dismissed until August 11, 1989. The non-party 2 was appointed as the chief of KIB, and he was appointed as the chief of KIB. The non-party 3 was appointed as the chief of KIB. The non-party 3 was appointed as the chief of KIB and the non-party 2 was present on November 13, 1989, and the non-party 3 was present on the date of pleading, which was the defendant's notice of November 14, 1992, when the lawsuit for ownership transfer registration was filed. The plaintiff (the non-party 1 and the plaintiff 2) declared the non-party 192.

In addition, the court below determined that there was a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment for retrial on the ground that the court below rendered the above constructive confession ruling on the ground that the defendant's legitimate representative was not given a writ of summons of the date for pleading even though the claim for the registration of transfer of ownership was concluded at the closing of argument due to the absence of the representative, and the date for pronouncement was designated due to the failure of the representative, and thus, the judgment for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act was rendered on the ground that there was a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment for retrial.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da47632 delivered on January 11, 1994), and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from those of this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the re-adjudication is a temple belonging to the Korean Buddhist Buddhist Temples, registered under Article 6 of the former Buddhist Temples Management Act (repealed by the Traditional Temples Preservation Act, Law No. 3974, Nov. 28, 1987) on December 29, 1962, and it is clearly recorded that it is the same temple as the defendant indicated in the judgment subject to re-adjudication. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal premised on a different view is not accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant borrowed gold KRW 95,00,000 from the plaintiff and agreed to pay the real estate of this case to the defendant in lieu of payment. In light of relevant evidence, the court below's finding is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, etc. as alleged in

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (defendant). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)