[대통령선거무효등][공1993.12.15.(958),3186]
If an objection, such as an objection, is raised against an order to correct the stamp, the court's decision on such objection
No objection may be raised independently, such as an objection, appeal, etc., against the order to dismiss the presiding judge’s stamp, so even if an objection is raised against the order to dismiss the stamp, this cannot be viewed as a claim based on the right under the Civil Procedure Act, and it is merely a demand for correction by the authority of the court. Therefore, it is unnecessary to specify the judgment on
Articles 231 and 409 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 30, 67Ma1096 decided Mar. 4, 1971; 71Ma89 decided Feb. 4, 1987; 86g157 decided Feb. 4, 1987 (Gong1993Sang, 1451)
Plaintiff
National Election Commission Chairperson and two others
Supreme Court Order 93No10 Dated February 13, 1993
The quasi-examination application is dismissed.
A quasi-examination application shall be regarded as reasons for the application.
The gist of the grounds for the application for quasi-examination of this case is that the applicant for quasi-examination of this case, such as the invalidation of the presidential election of this case, cannot comply with the stamp correction order in the written objection against the stamp correction order, etc., the failure to determine in the rejection order of the written complaint subject to reexamination constitutes a deviation of judgment under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that the rejection of the written complaint without determining the merits of the lawsuit, such as the invalidation of the presidential election, constitutes grounds for retrial.
The reasons for the issuance of the quasi-examination order of this case are that the plaintiff (the applicant for quasi-examination of this case) did not attach legal stamps to the written complaint submitted by the plaintiff (the plaintiff) and did not make any correction within the prescribed period, and the complaint is dismissed. Thus, the presiding judge's rejection of the written complaint is not possible independently, such as filing an objection and an appeal (see Supreme Court Order 67Ma1096, Nov. 30, 1967). Therefore, even if an objection is raised against the stamp correction order, it cannot be viewed as an application based on the right under the Civil Procedure Act, and it is nothing more than an urge of the court's ex officio correction. Thus, it is not necessary to specify the decision as to the rejection of the written complaint. Thus, it is not clear that the plaintiff quasi-examination applicant of this case's written objection against the presiding judge's rejection of the written complaint of this case, the amendment and supplement of the purport of the complaint, and the unconstitutional appeal order of this case's rejection of the written complaint of this case's rejection.
Therefore, the application for quasi-examination of this case is dismissed as the grounds for quasi-examination are not recognized. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)