Main Issues

Method of dissatisfaction against an order to dismiss the petition of appeal by the presiding judge

Summary of Judgment

With respect to the order to dismiss the petition of appeal by the presiding judge, the application for the designation of the date for pleading has been made even when the immediate appeal is to be filed under Articles 371 and 231 of the Civil Procedure Act, and such application is illegal.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 371, 231, and 152 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff, Appellant

Kim Ho-hee

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Suwon Mineral Industry Corporation

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court (78 Gohap1130)

Text

An application shall be dismissed for designation of the date for pleading as to this case by the defendant.

Reasons

On January 19, 1979, when there is a shortage of recognition attached to the defendant's petition of appeal concerning this case, the order of the correction of recognition set by seven days of the presiding judge's correction deadline was served on the defendant on January 19, 1979, but the defendant did not correct it, so the presiding judge ordered the rejection of the petition of appeal on February 12, 1979, and the original copy of this order was served on the defendant on the 14th of that month, and the defendant neglected the above order of correction without delivering it to the officer in charge, and it is obvious on the record that he applied for the designation of the date of pleading on the 28th of that month on the ground that the defendant did not correct the recognition within the prescribed period, even if the reasons why the defendant did not correct the stamp, the above order of the presiding judge's rejection of the petition of appeal should be filed immediately pursuant to Articles 371 and 231 of the Civil Procedure Act, so it is unlawful for the defendant to apply for designation of the date of pleading (the above one week is also unlawful).