[제권판결불복사건][고집1980민(2),203]
The competent court of a lawsuit against a nullification judgment;
A lawsuit of dissatisfaction against a nullification judgment shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a single judge of the district court.
Article 447 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 29 of the Court Organization Act, Article 7 of the Court Organization Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul Civil History District Court (79 Gohap5745)
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The case shall be transferred to the Seoul Civil District Court.
The plaintiff shall revoke the original judgment.
With respect to the application for public summons filed by the Defendant, the judgment of nullification shall be revoked with respect to promissory notes entered in the attached list declared by the same court on September 19, 1979, as regards the application for public summons filed by the Defendant.
The judgment dismissing the above request for the public summons was sought.
The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. First, on May 1, 1979, on the ground that the defendant lost a promissory note stated in the separate sheet, the court of Seoul Civil District Court 79Ka15148 on June 7, 1979, which was defective in the application for the public summons on the following day, made a decision of the public summons on September 19, 1979, and made a public summons on the entry in the separate sheet and securities on September 19, 1979 on June 19, 1979, which was the date of the public summons on September 10, 1979: since there was no person who filed a transfer report or securities of the right until 00, and thus, the judgment of nullification should be declared as invalid upon the applicant's request. However, the defendant did not lose a promissory note, but did not transfer it by endorsement to non-party 1 corporation, and thus, it cannot be allowed for the plaintiff to file a final judgment of nullification against the defendant 1 corporation in Seoul District Court.
According to Article 447 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 7(3), and Article 29 of the Court Organization Act, a public summons case is a case under the jurisdiction of a single judge of a district court. According to Article 461(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit of objection against a nullification judgment shall be brought to the highest court, and such highest court's jurisdiction shall be judged to be exclusive jurisdiction due to the nature of the separation of jurisdiction. This provision does not have any special provision as to the jurisdiction of an object as provided by Article 509(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, unless it has a special provision as to the jurisdiction of an object, the lawsuit of objection against a nullification judgment shall be deemed to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of a single judge of a district court. According to the records of this case, according to the records of this case, it is obvious that the collegiate panel of the same court has deliberated and judged a lawsuit of objection against a nullification judgment even though the procedure of the public summons was conducted by a single judge of the Seoul Civil Procedure Act, and the original judgment violates the provisions as to the jurisdiction under Article 4
Therefore, since the original judgment violated the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction, it shall be revoked by Article 389 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it shall be transferred to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Judge, the competent court, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.
Judges Yoon Il-young (Presiding Judge)