[2] The case holding that if an obligor who filed an immediate appeal against the first instance court's non-permission order on the ground of non-compliance with the order of correction, etc. submitted additional explanation or data, the appellate court should determine whether there exists a ground for non-permission of exemption under Article 564 (1) 5 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, including this, should be determined

Article 33 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to bankruptcy procedures, including immunity, except as otherwise provided for in the above Act. The civil appellate court, which applies mutatis mutandis to the litigation procedures of the appellate court pursuant to Article 443 of the Civil Procedure Act, shall be deemed to have jurisdiction over the procedure of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72765, Apr. 12, 2007). As long as the procedure of the appellate court is under jurisdiction, so long as the procedure of the appellate court is under jurisdiction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72765, Apr. 12, 2007). The submission of new facts and evidence at the appellate court, which examines the debtor’s immediate appeal against the ruling of non-permission of the first instance exemption, may be made until the examination is completed

However, according to the reasoning of the order of the court below and records, the Re-Appellant was requested to the first instance court on May 30, 2006 for bankruptcy and exemption on July 26, 2006, and the discontinuation of bankruptcy was ordered as of July 26, 2006, and the first instance court's defects with respect to the above Re-Appellant's declaration of bankruptcy were 2 times on March 30, 207 and April 24, 2007, and the date for hearing the opinion of the Re-Appellant was 6.0 days after the Re-Appellant's non-appellant's non-compliance with the above 6.1's non-compliance with the first instance court's order for non-compliance with the above 6.1's order for non-compliance with the first instance court's order for non-compliance with the above 6.1's non-compliance with the first instance court's order for non-compliance with the first instance court's order for non-compliance with the second instance court's order for non-compliance with the above 6.

However, in light of the above legal principles and the process of the trial of this case, the court below ordered the re-appellant who attended the court below's order of correction similar to that of the first instance court's order of correction and completed the examination of part of the court below, and the re-appellant respondeds to the above order of correction by submitting the amendment of the first instance court's order of correction. In light of the nature of the appeal's appellate trial, the court below should have determined whether the re-appellant's additional explanation or submission of the materials, including the materials, etc., in accordance with the court below's order of correction, should be determined whether the grounds for refusing to grant the exemption due to the violation of the duty of Article 564 (1) 5 of the Act exist.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that there exists a ground for refusing to grant immunity on the basis of the vindication and materials submitted in the court of first instance without considering the contents of the re-appellant's correction made following the additional examination and correction order of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the structure of the appellate trial and the lack

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)