'Lawyer Kwon's No-Show' Lawsuit Loss... Court Heard Reopening, but 'Witness Testimony Deemed Unnecessary'

A significant legal battle is unfolding concerning the validity of an appeal waiver in a school violence lawsuit, stemming from the repeated absences of the victim's attorney, Kwon Kyung-ae. The case, which has dragged on for three years, saw both parties fail to appear for three consecutive court dates, leading to the appeal being deemed waived under civil procedure law. This situation has left the victim's family in a precarious position, having lost their appeal after the initial ruling was already unfavorable.

“

The court questioned the necessity of witness examination.

The victim's side has vehemently contested the waiver, arguing that Kwon Kyung-ae's absences were not mere oversights but potentially driven by personal intentions. They have pushed for Kwon's testimony, seeking to prove that she deliberately failed to attend court and neglected to inform her client, thereby causing procedural prejudice. The core of their argument is that if Kwon's actions were indeed intentional, then the resulting procedural disadvantage should not befall the victim.

“

There are circumstances where lawyer Kwon Kyung-ae was absent from the trial with personal intentions and did not inform the client (of the trial dates).

However, the court appears hesitant to delve into Kwon's motivations. While acknowledging that Kwon's absences were 'very wrong' and expressing empathy for the victim's situation, the judges pointed out that the law strictly treats three consecutive absences as an automatic waiver, regardless of the circumstances. The court's stance suggests that the legal framework prioritizes procedural finality, even when it leads to seemingly unjust outcomes for a party involved.

“

If the intention is confirmed through witness examination, it is unfair to attribute the procedural disadvantage to us.

The proceedings have now concluded, with the court set to deliver its verdict on June 24. The decision will hinge on whether the court finds sufficient grounds to invalidate the appeal waiver, potentially reopening the case, or upholds the procedural outcome, effectively ending the victim's pursuit of justice through this appeal. This case highlights the complex interplay between procedural rules and substantive justice, leaving many to question the adequacy of the current legal system in such sensitive situations.

“

Lawyer Kwon's absence is very wrong, and we feel the weight of the plaintiff's feelings in requesting witness testimony.