Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Representation defect as a retrial ground only where the opponent benefits
Supreme Court, Feb. 26, 2026, 2025Da213795 (judgment)
Case name: 소유권이전등기[확정된 화해권고결정에 대한 준재심 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a finalised mediation recommendation obliged the deceased to transfer a one-third share in the lands to the plaintiff, may the deceased invoke the defect of the plaintiff's representative authority as a ground for re-trial under Article 461 and Article 451(1)(iii) of the Civil Procedure Act merely because that defect could have led to dismissal of the suit?
Holding
No. Article 451(1)(iii) of the Civil Procedure Act makes a defect of legal representation or representative authority a ground for retrial in order to protect the party whose representation is defective, so the opposing party may rely on it only where it can gain by asserting that ground, meaning the prior judgment can be changed finally in its favour for reasons other than the defect itself. That the defect could have led to dismissal of the suit is nothing but the direct legal effect of the defect and does not meet that requirement, so the Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and remanded the case to the Daejeon District Court.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
대표권의 흠결로 소 각하의 결론에 이를 가능성이 있다는 것은 대표권 흠결의 직접적 법률효과에 불과할 뿐 ‘종전의 판결이 종국적으로 상대방의 이익으로 변경될 수 있는 경우’에 해당하지 않으므로, 그러한 사유만으로는 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제3호의 재심사유를 인정할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The fact that a defect in representative authority may lead to the conclusion of dismissal of the action is no more than the direct legal effect of the defect in representative authority, and does not fall under ‘a case where the previous judgment may finally be changed to the interest of the other party’; therefore, on that ground alone, the grounds for retrial under subparagraph 3 of paragraph (1) of Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be recognized.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그러한 사유를 주장함으로써 이익을 받을 수 있는 경우에 한하고
Unofficial English translation
it is limited to cases where a party may benefit by asserting such a ground, and
Factors
- 원래 그러한 대표권의 흠결이 있는 당사자 측을 보호하려는 데에 있으므로
- 그러한 사유를 주장함으로써 이익을 받을 수 있는 경우에 한하고
- 위와 같은 대표권 흠결 이외의 사유로도 종전의 판결이 종국적으로 상대방의 이익으로 변경될 수 있는 경우를 가리킨다
- 대표권의 흠결로 소 각하의 결론에 이를 가능성이 있다는 것은 대표권 흠결의 직접적 법률효과에 불과할 뿐
Unofficial English translation
• because its purpose lies originally in protecting the party on whose side such a defect in representative authority exists,
• it is limited to cases where a party may benefit by asserting such a ground, and
• it refers to cases where the previous judgment may finally be changed to the interest of the other party for reasons other than such a defect in representative authority
• the fact that a defect in representative authority may lead to the conclusion of dismissal of the action is no more than the direct legal effect of the defect in representative authority
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2000. 12. 22. 선고 2000재다513 판결(공2001상, 343)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2000JaeDa513 decided December 22, 2000 (Gong 2001 Sang, 343)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2000. 12. 22. 선고 2000재다513 판결(공2001상, 343)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Setting the defect of representative authority aside, what other grounds could have changed a finalised mediation recommendation granting transfer of ownership registration finally in the defendant's favour?
The remand judgment of the Daejeon District Court, once it examines whether such other grounds existed, will show how the requirement of benefit to the opponent works in practice. Any amendment to Article 451(1)(iii) or Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act, or a later decision narrowing or widening 'a case in which the prior judgment can be changed finally in the opponent's favour', would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon District Court, in its judgment of 29 May 2025 (2023ReNa2035), held that a ground for re-trial existed. It reasoned that without a valid general meeting resolution of the plaintiff, the first-instance dismissal could have stood and the mediation recommendation would not have become final, that the plaintiff had passed no resolution ratifying the recommendation by the close of oral argument, so the recommendation suffered from a defect of the plaintiff's representative authority and the deceased gained by asserting it.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this misread the law on the ground for re-trial under Article 461 and Article 451(1)(iii) of the Civil Procedure Act and left necessary examination undone. The court below should have asked whether the mediation recommendation could still have been changed finally in the deceased's favour on grounds other than the defect of the plaintiff's representative authority or the lack of special authority to sue, and it made no examination or finding on that point. The judgment was therefore reversed and remanded, with the remaining appeal grounds left undecided, on the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which, setting aside the defect of representative authority or the lack of special authority to sue, the prior judgment could still be changed finally in the opponent's favour on other grounds.
- A case in which the party asserting the defect is itself the party whose defective representation the provision is designed to protect.
- A case whose only asserted consequence is that the defect could have led to dismissal of the suit, since that is the direct legal effect of the defect.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the Court's own contrast. On one side is the lower court's reasoning that, had the mediation recommendation not become final, the dismissal conclusion of the first instance could have remained, which the Court held is nothing but the direct legal effect of the defect. On the other side is the question whether, apart from the plaintiff's defective representative authority or lack of special authority to sue, any ground could have changed the recommendation finally in the deceased's favour, on which the court below made no examination or finding. Note also that the Supreme Court did not decide the remaining appeal grounds, and that the deceased had already carried out the registration on 25 January 2017.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 법정대리권 등의 흠결을 상대방이 재심사유로 삼기 위한 요건 / 대표권의 흠결로 소 각하의 결론에 이를 가능성이 있다는 사정만으로 위와 같은 재심사유를 인정할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 갑 종중이 을에 대하여 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하는 소를 제기하였는데, 제1심에서는 갑 종중의 적법한 대표자 선출결의 및 소 제기를 위한 적법한 총회결의가 없다고 보아 소를 각하하는 판결이 선고되었다가, 항소심에서 갑 종중의 청구를 인용하는 내용이 포함된 화해권고결정이 확정되었고, 이후 을이 대리권 흠결 등의 사유로 위 화해권고결정의 취소를 구하는 준재심의 소를 제기한 사안에서, 갑 종중의 소 제기를 위한 적법한 총회결의가 없었고 화해권고결정이 확정되지 않았더라면 소 각하의 결론이 그대로 유지될 가능성이 있었다는 이유만으로 화해권고결정에 준재심사유가 존재한다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Requirements for the other party to assert as a ground for retrial a defect in the statutory power of representation or the like prescribed in subparagraph 3 of paragraph (1) of Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act / Whether such a ground for retrial may be recognized merely by the circumstance that a defect in representative authority may lead to the conclusion of dismissal of the action (negative) [2] A Jong filed an action against B seeking performance of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership; in the court of first instance, a judgment dismissing the action was rendered on the ground that A Jong had no valid resolution electing a legitimate representative and no valid general meeting resolution for the filing of the action; on appeal, a decision recommending settlement that included content upholding A Jong's claim became final and conclusive; and thereafter, in a case where B filed an action for quasi-retrial seeking cancellation of the said decision recommending settlement on the ground of a defect in the authority of representation or the like, a case where the judgment of the court below, which held that a ground for quasi-retrial existed with respect to the decision recommending settlement on the sole ground that there had been no valid general meeting resolution for A Jong's filing of the action and that, had the decision recommending settlement not become final and conclusive, the conclusion of dismissal of the action was likely to have been maintained as it was, is erroneous in that it misapprehended legal principles, among other things
Summary of the holding
[1] 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제3호에서 법정대리권 등의 흠결을 재심사유로 규정한 취지는 원래 그러한 대표권의 흠결이 있는 당사자 측을 보호하려는 데에 있으므로, 그 상대방이 이를 재심사유로 삼기 위하여는 그러한 사유를 주장함으로써 이익을 받을 수 있는 경우에 한하고, 여기서 이익을 받을 수 있는 경우란 위와 같은 대표권 흠결 이외의 사유로도 종전의 판결이 종국적으로 상대방의 이익으로 변경될 수 있는 경우를 가리킨다. 대표권의 흠결로 소 각하의 결론에 이를 가능성이 있다는 것은 대표권 흠결의 직접적 법률효과에 불과할 뿐 ‘종전의 판결이 종국적으로 상대방의 이익으로 변경될 수 있는 경우’에 해당하지 않으므로, 그러한 사유만으로는 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제3호의 재심사유를 인정할 수 없다. [2] 갑 종중이 을에 대하여 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하는 소를 제기하였는데, 제1심에서는 갑 종중의 적법한 대표자 선출결의 및 소 제기를 위한 적법한 총회결의가 없다고 보아 소를 각하하는 판결이 선고되었다가, 항소심에서 갑 종중의 청구를 인용하는 내용이 포함된 화해권고결정이 확정되었고, 이후 을이 민사소송법 제461조, 제451조 제1항 제3호의 대리권 흠결 등의 사유로 위 화해권고결정의 취소를 구하는 준재심의 소를 제기한 사안에서, 을이 갑 종중의 대리권 흠결을 준재심사유로 삼기 위하여는 대리권 흠결 이외의 사유로도 화해권고결정이 종국적으로 을의 이익으로 변경될 수 있는 경우여야 하는데, 갑 종중의 소 제기를 위한 적법한 총회결의가 없었고 화해권고결정이 확정되지 않았더라면 소 각하의 결론이 그대로 유지될 가능성이 있었다는 이유만으로 화해권고결정에 준재심사유가 존재한다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제3호 / [2] 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제3호, 제461조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger