Where a single judge, etc. handles a disposition taken by a judicial assistant judge, etc., he/she may file an objection in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 4 (2) through (10) of the Rules on Judicial Assistants (Article 4 (1) of the Rules on Judicial Assistants), and where an objection is filed in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the Rules on Judicial Assistants, it is unnecessary to attach stamps or documents to be provided for in the Act on the Recognition of Civil Procedure, etc. or the relevant Act (Article 4 (4) of the Rules on Judicial Assistants), and Article 4 (5) of the Rules on Judicial Assistants, etc. shall not be accompanied (Article 7 (1) of the Rules on Civil Procedure; where a judge handles an appeal or objection against a disposition subject to an immediate appeal among the dispositions taken by the judicial assistant officers, he/she shall authorize the disposition of the judicial assistant officers and send the case to the appellate court; where an objection is not stated in the period for submission as an appeal or immediate appeal under the relevant Act; where an objection is not prescribed in Article 6 (1) or 6 (5) of the said Rules on Civil Execution Act, it shall be deemed an objection to the period for objection.

Therefore, where a single judge, etc. who received a case of objection against the decision on permission to sell the judicial assistant, approves the disposition of the judicial assistant on the ground that the objection is groundless, and simultaneously orders the claimant to submit a written reason for appeal stipulated in Article 15(3) of the Civil Execution Act, if the written reason for appeal is submitted within a reasonable period specified in the order of correction, the appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground that the written reason for appeal has not been submitted to the first instance court within 10 days from the date the written

According to the records, on January 12, 2009, the judicial assistant officer submitted a written appeal to the Re-Appellant on Jan. 19, 2009 to the effect that the Re-Appellant filed an objection against the above disposition on Jan. 19, 2009, and the judge of the first instance court in receipt of the case of objection against the decision of permission for sale by the judicial assistant officer on Jan. 23, 2009 issued the instant order of correction with the content of approving the disposition of the judicial assistant officer on Jan. 23, 2009 and submitting the reason for appeal in parallel, within five days from the date of receipt of the order of correction on the same day. The order of correction was delivered to the Re-Appellant on Feb. 2, 2009, within the period of the order of correction, and the Re-Appellant submitted the reason for appeal to the first instance court on Feb. 9, 2009.

Thus, the court of first instance, which is the appellate court, should have judged the appeal of this case on the premise that it is legitimate to submit a written reason for appeal of this case. However, the court of first instance, which received the case of objection against the decision of permission for sale by the judicial assistant, shall be deemed to have dismissed the appeal of this case with limited order of correction. The ground for reappeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)