[2] In a case where Party A applied for issuance of a certificate of reasons for refund and related refund amount as stipulated in Article 33(2) of the Rules on the Stamps Attached for Civil Litigation, etc. to the appellate trial division for stamp refund corresponding to the amount of claim reduced in the first instance court, but the court below prepared a written opinion that a revenue collection officer’s decision should be obtained on the ground that a junior administrative officer is not a ground for stamp refund and deliver it to Party A, the case holding that Party A may contest against the refusal of issuance of a certificate as “Objection to Disposition of Junior Administrative Officer, etc.” as stipulated in Article 223 of the Civil Procedure Act

[3] Whether the reduction of part of a single claim constitutes a ground for refund of stamp value under Article 14(1)2 of the Act on the Stamps Attached for Civil Litigation, Etc. (negative)

[2] In a case where Gap submitted a written withdrawal in the first instance trial and applied for issuance of a written confirmation on the grounds for refund and related refund amount as stipulated in Article 33(2) of the Act on the Stamps Attached for Civil Litigation, etc. to the appellate trial division for stamp refund corresponding to the reduced claim amount after reducing the claim amount, but a junior administrative officer decided that the grounds for stamp refund should be determined by the revenue collection officer because the Gap's application is reduced in part of the same claim, and delivered the written opinion to Gap, the case holding that the junior administrative officer may dispute the refusal of issuance of a written confirmation by the junior administrative officer as "an objection to the disposition of the junior administrative officer, etc." as stipulated in Article 223 of the Civil Procedure Act

[3] Article 14(1)2 of the Act on the Stamps Attached for Civil Litigation, Etc. provides that where a lawsuit, appeal, counterclaim, claim modification application, party intervention application, or suit for retrial is withdrawn (including a case considered to be withdrawn) before the closing of argument in the court of first instance or the appellate court, a refund of an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the stamp amount may be claimed. Accordingly, rather than a revocation of a claim, the case where a reduction of part of a single claim does not constitute grounds for refund of the stamp amount as set forth above.

1. As to the first ground for reappeal

If the parties or interested parties have filed an application for a disposition by a Junior Administrative Officer, etc. in accordance with the relevant statutes, etc., and if the Junior Administrative Officer, etc. did not comply with the application and indicate that the formal requirement is not sufficient or there is no reason to do so, the applicant as the applicant shall be deemed to have refused the application and may contest the objection against the disposition by a Junior Administrative Officer, etc. in accordance with Article 223 of the Civil

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the record, the re-appellant submitted a written withdrawal of a part of the lawsuit from the court of first instance to November 9, 201, and reduced the claim amount, and applied for issuance of a written confirmation as to the grounds for refund and related refund amount under Article 33 (2) of the Rules on the Stamps of Civil Litigation, etc. for recognition and refund corresponding to the claim amount reduced from the court of first instance to the court of first instance on October 4, 2011. On December 13, 2011, the junior administrative officer decided that the re-appellant's application for recognition is not a ground for recognition and refund because it reduces part of the same claim, and then the collection officer issued it to the re-appellant. After the Seoul High Court's receipt officer recommended the re-appellant's legal representative to raise an objection against the disposition of the junior administrative officer, etc. by telephone through the disbursement order on December 21, 2011, and the purport of the re-appellant's application for confirmation as to the above disposition is known.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the junior administrative officer may regard the application for the confirmation of the grounds for the refund of stamps and the refund amount of the re-appellant as having expressed his intention to refuse it on the ground that the application is not a ground for the refund of stamps. Therefore, the re-appellant may raise an objection against the disposition of the junior administrative officer, etc., which the junior administrative officer refused to issue the confirmation.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the re-appellant may raise an objection against the disposition of junior administrative officer, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground

2. As to the grounds of reappeal Nos. 2, 3 and 4

Article 14(1)2 of the Act on the Stamps Attached for Civil Litigation, Etc. provides that where a lawsuit, appeal, counterclaim, application for change of claim, application for party intervention, or lawsuit for retrial has been withdrawn (including cases deemed to be withdrawn) before the closing of argument in the relevant court of first instance or the appellate court, a refund of the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the amount of the stamp may be claimed.

Therefore, if a claim is not withdrawn, but is simply reduced in part of a single claim, it does not constitute a ground for refund of the stamp amount as above.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the Constitution or misapprehension of the legal principle as otherwise alleged in the grounds for reappeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)