beta
Text
1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
The subject matter of judgment is that the defendant, who manages the property of the clan of the plaintiff clan, uses and benefits from the land of this case without the plaintiff's permission. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to collect the plaintiff's portrait tree on the ground of this case, collect it from November 23, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the above land, and pay the plaintiff's unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 140,000 won per month from November 23, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the above land. In addition, since the plaintiff's mother is living together with the defendant's mother in the building of this case owned by the plaintiff clan, the above building is delivered, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant on the ground that the defendant has a duty to pay the rent equivalent to the rent of 30,000 won per month from November 23, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the above building. The plaintiff's claim was accepted in entirety, and the decision was finalized as stated in the purport
K, which filed a lawsuit as the representative of the plaintiff in the judgment subject to a retrial, is not a legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan.
Therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial is carried out by a person who has no legitimate power of representation, and there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act
Judgment
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed that K, as a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff clan, filed a lawsuit subject to review against the Defendant, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to review.
However, the purport of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the defect of the power of representation, etc. as grounds for retrial is to protect the party who originally lacks such power of representation. Thus, it is limited to the case where the other party can benefit by asserting such grounds for retrial. The case where the benefit can be received here is the case where other than the above defects of power of representation.