(1) If the new representative fails to notify the other party of the termination of the representative’s power of representation;

(2) The effect of the extinguishment of power of representation in such case

With respect to the extinction of the representative's power of representation of a juristic person, the legal proceedings shall be clear and stable as they cannot take effect unless the new representative gives notice to the other party under this Article and Article 59 of this Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the other party's notification naturally takes effect on the ground that the other party was aware of the loss of the representative authority of the former representative. Therefore, unless the other party was notified of the loss of representative authority of the former representative, the appeal by the former representative shall not be deemed lawful.

Article 60 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Western Tourism Corporation

Red support in the first instance, Daejeon District Court Decision 68Na36 delivered on July 3, 1968

The case was terminated by the respondent's withdrawal of the appeal on September 7, 1968.

Costs of litigation after the withdrawal of an appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

According to the statement of withdrawal of the appeal on September 7, 1968, the respondent's representative director's application (the respondent's representative's application for objection to withdrawal of the appeal on September 12, 1968) for the fixed date of the representative director's meeting (the plaintiff's representative director's application is called a fixed date's application) and according to the statement of withdrawal of the appeal on September 7, 1968, the non-party 1 of the respondent's representative director's representative director's office at the time at the time is withdrawn from this case's appeal. The above non-party 1, the respondent's representative director, without the resolution of the shareholders' general meeting and the board of directors' general meeting of the respondent's company, has forged the minutes of the company's meeting as the seal of the respondent and appointed the representative director as the representative director's representative director without the consent of the Respondent's representative director's representative director's representative director's representative director's representative director's representative director's representative director's consent, it cannot be confirmed that the above non-party 12's representative's defendant's defendant's appointment.

Next, as the respondent's agent has conspired with the other party to file a final appeal, it is alleged that the withdrawal of the final appeal is null and void, on the ground that the other party's consent was obtained in the withdrawal of the final appeal, and the withdrawal of the final appeal cannot be deemed null and void.

In addition, according to the statement in the copy of the above register of the respondent, the above non-party 1, the representative director of the respondent company of August 31, 1968, who is the representative director of the above non-party 1, shall resign and take office as the representative director, and the registration of modification thereof was made on September 7, 1968. However, with respect to the extinguishment of representative of the corporation, it cannot take effect unless the new representative is notified to the other party in accordance with Articles 60 and 59 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the respondent's representative has conspired with the other party who made a final appeal of September 7, 1968. Thus, the respondent's representative has the same effect as notifying the other party of the extinguishment of representative authority of the above non-party 1, but the litigation procedure must be clear and stable. Thus, it cannot be said that the other party's loss of representative authority of the above non-party 1 becomes effective as a matter of course, and the representative shall not be viewed as being lawful.

Therefore, this case is deemed to have been terminated by the withdrawal of a final appeal from September 7, 1968. Thus, the date of this case is without merit, and the litigation costs after the withdrawal of a final appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge)