The case holding that since the provisions of Articles 59 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act apply only to the litigation conducted by the other party and also to the withdrawal of a lawsuit, which is a sole act to the court of a person who has already lost the power of representation, the effect of the withdrawal is nonexistent as long as the person who prepared the written withdrawal before submitting the written withdrawal to the court

Articles 59 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act

Gyeong Industrial Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 decided May 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na482 decided March 8, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney;

The procedural act of withdrawal of a lawsuit under the Civil Procedure Act is a sole act against the court, and when a lawsuit is withdrawn, it is necessary to have the authority to conduct such procedural act at the time that the written withdrawal is submitted to the court. If the written withdrawal of a lawsuit has not yet been submitted to the court even if it was made by the person with the authority to conduct the withdrawal of the lawsuit, the written withdrawal cannot be effective, and if the person who prepared the written withdrawal has already lost the power to withdraw the lawsuit before submitting the written withdrawal to the court, the written withdrawal has already been submitted to the court, and there is no room to bring about the effect of the withdrawal. Accordingly, under the same view, the court below is justified in holding that the above written withdrawal cannot be effective because it is merely a withdrawal of a lawsuit by a person who is not the representative director of the plaintiff company, which was the representative director of the first instance court.

In addition, the purport of Articles 59 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act is to interpret that, even if the legal representation right (including a representative of a legal entity; hereinafter the same shall apply) in the course of the legal representation procedure has been extinguished, if the other party fails to notify the other party of the reason for extinguishment, the other party's legal representation right has its validity regardless of the extinguishment of the legal representation right, and the other party's legal representation right has not been known. The purport of the appeal is to recognize the validity of withdrawal of the legal representation right, which is a sole action, to the court of the person whose legal representation

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the above explanation as to the validity of withdrawal of action, it is clear that there is no room for the application of Article 111(2) of the Civil Code in this case. Therefore, the appeal is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong and Do-dong Do-won Round