상소제기의 특별수권과 소송대리권의 소멸시기- 대법원 2010. 12. 23. 선고, 2007다22859 판결 -

Abstract

Civil proceedings shall be interrupted upon a party's death(Civil Procedure Act article 233 paragraph 1). But if there exists the attorney appointed by the dead party, the proceedings shall not be interrupted(the above act article 238). In that case, the attorney shall be considered as attorney of all inheritors. Supreme Court Decision 2007Da22859(decided on December 23, 2010) says, in those cases, ① Even if the court adjudicates on the case omitting some inheritors, the judgment has effect on all inheritors. ② If the attorney has the particular authority to file an appeal, the proceedings shall not be interrupted even though the instance ends, and the period of time of appeal shall progress. ③ If the attorney or the opposite party files an appeal indicating all inheritors on the judgment, that appeal should be considered as the one against the whole judgment. ④ When the attorney(who has the particular authority to file an appeal) files an appeal, the powers of the attorney shall expire, and the proceedings shall be interrupted(in other words, the particular authority to file an appeal doesn't include the authority of representation in a higher court). The above ① is same as many precedents and ② is reconfirmation of Supreme Court Decision 91Ma342(decided on November 5, 1992). ③ and ④ are dealing with the new issues. I consent to that 'the particular authority to file an appeal' doesn't include the authority of representation in a higher court. Moreover, it should be interpreted literally as the authority to file an appeal itself. Such interpretation would be the one pursuant to the principle of representation by instance. But I cannot consent to the above ②. The popular view in Korea, Japan and the precedents in Japan are that when an attorney has the particular authority to file an appeal, the proceedings shall not be interrupted even though the instance ends, and the period of time of appeal shall progress. The reason and ground are that if the attorney has the particular authority to file an appeal, he(she) has the authority not only to file an appeal, but also to represent the inheritors in the higher court. But Supreme Court's decision is that when the attorney files an appeal, the powers of the attorney shall expire and the attorney shall not have any authority to represent the inheritors. My argument is that even if the attorney has the particular authority to file an appeal, the powers of the attorney shall expire when the instance ends. Thus, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the period of time of appeal shall not progress. The attorney has authority only to file an appeal pursuant to particular authorization. I dissent from the above ③(an appeal could be effective to other inheritors who hadn't been indicated on a written appeal). It is against the principle of indication and appearance in litigation. And to follow it, who are the parties in the higher court might be confusing.