[2] In a case where the plaintiff won several claims where economic benefits are identical or overlapping to the defendants, and either of the defendants dissatisfied with such claims files an appeal after attaching stamps to the petition of appeal in the name of sole name, and then the other defendant files an appeal in the name of joint name including the above defendant, whether the original attachment of the petition of appeal may be invoked (negative)

[3] In a case where the plaintiff won several claims identical or overlapping economic benefits to the defendants, without attaching revenue stamps, after submitting a petition of appeal in the name of the single defendant, and again submitting a petition of appeal in the name of the other defendant within the period of appeal, and attaching revenue stamps thereto, whether it is necessary to separately attach revenue stamps to the petition of appeal in the name of the single defendant submitted first to the extent of objection, within the same and overlapping economic benefits (negative)

[4] In a case where Company A filed a lawsuit against Company B, Company C, and Company C by filing a judgment in favor of all of the claims, such as a contract deposit, and submitted a petition of appeal in the name of the sole name with all of the revenue stamps attached thereto, and submitted a petition of appeal in the name of the sole name with only a part of the revenue stamps attached thereto. After which, while submitting a petition of appeal in the name of the joint name, only a part of revenue stamps are attached between Company B, Company C, and Company C, within the period of appeal, the remaining amount of revenue stamps in the scope of objection overlapping economic benefits among them shall be deemed to substitute for the amount of revenue stamps attached to the petition of appeal already submitted by Company C, and revised the shortage due to the order of correction, the case holding that even if a petition of appeal in the name of the joint name was submitted again after the submission of the petition of appeal in the name of the company C, the validity of posting attached to the petition of appeal in the name of the joint name submitted by Company C shall not be invoked, and since it overlaps with the whole scope of objection to the joint name B, the joint name payment of appeal under Article 20.

1. Details and object of the order to dismiss the petition of appeal against the re-appellant;

A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

(1) The Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit, such as an agreed amount, against the Haak Sys Syll, Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. and the Re-Appellant (hereinafter “Defendant”). On October 22, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the entirety of the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and on October 29, 2009, the court rendered a payment of KRW 50,302,838,040 for the Haak Sys Sys semiconductor Co., Ltd. and its delay damages. The Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd and the Defendant jointly and jointly with the Haak Sys Sys Sys Sypt Co., Ltd. and jointly rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. The above judgment was served both on October 29, 2009.

(2) On October 30, 2009, Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. submitted a petition of appeal containing all the amounts of stamp fees in the appellate trial, and the Defendant also submitted a separate petition of appeal on November 9, 2009 against the part against which he lost. However, the Defendant merely attached KRW 10,000, out of KRW 212,104,350, which is stamp fees to be affixed to the appellate court.

(3) On November 10, 2009, the presiding judge of the first instance court issued an order of correction to correct KRW 212,094,350 which is insufficient within five days from the date of service of the order of correction to the Defendant. The order of correction was served to the Defendant on November 13, 2009.

(4) Meanwhile, on November 11, 2009, when filing a petition of appeal against the above judgment under the joint name of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) on which the appeal period had already been filed, the amount of KRW 212,104,30,000 as to the appellate court’s amount of KRW 50,302,838,040, which is the scope of objection against the said judgment, among the amount of KRW 264,922,30, the appellate court’s amount of KRW 264,922,30, which is the scope of objection against the said judgment, was argued that the amount of KRW 52,818,00,000, which is the amount of KRW 52,818,000, which is the remainder of the revenue stamps, shall be substituted by the amount of stamp attached to the petition of appeal filed by the Hyundai Securities Company.

(5) On November 17, 2009, the Defendant submitted the amendment to the first instance court. The Defendant asserted that, in relation to co-defendant 1 with Hyundai Securities Co-Defendant 2, it is not necessary to attach stamps in duplicate. Thus, the Defendant submitted the letter of consent for personal support prepared by Hyundai Securities Co-Defendant 2 in lieu of stamp correction.

(6) On November 20, 2009, the presiding judge issued an order to make an additional note of the Supreme Court Order 98Ma938 dated July 27, 1998 to the Defendant, etc. to correct KRW 264,912,30 of the stamp amount short of five days from the date of service, and the Defendant, etc.’s attorney corrected KRW 264,912,30 on November 26, 2009 after receiving the above order of correction.

(7) On January 7, 2010, the presiding judge issued a written reply to the Defendant, etc. on December 1, 2009, stating that “if the payment of stamp is not permitted, the stamp correction is recognized as to the petition of appeal of the Haak Ss semiconductor Co., Ltd., or as to whether the stamp correction is made or not,” the Defendant, etc. issued an order to make a tin preparation. The Defendant, etc. submitted to the first instance court on January 14, 2010, a written reply stating that “if the payment of stamp is not permitted, the stamp correction as of December 1, 2009 is recognized as the stamp correction as to the petition of appeal of the Haaks Sungs semiconductor Co., Ltd., the stamp correction as of December 1, 2009.”

(8) On January 25, 2010, the presiding judge of the first instance court issued an order to dismiss the petition of appeal (hereinafter “order to dismiss the petition of appeal of this case”) with the content that “The petition of this case shall be dismissed” on the ground that the Defendant did not comply with the order to pay the insufficient amount of stamp.

B. Persons subject to the rejection order of the petition of appeal

In full view of the relation to the submission of each of the above petition of appeal, the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court to supplement or correct recognition, the procedure of correction of acknowledgement thereafter, and the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court to prepare for seat, etc., the defendant's petition of appeal dismissed by the presiding judge of the first instance court in the order to dismiss the petition of appeal of this case shall be deemed to be the petition of appeal filed on November 9, 2009 under the sole name of the defendant, who was subject to the order of correction of identification as of November 10, 209, which was the object

2. Whether the order to dismiss the petition of appeal of this case is legitimate

A. Article 20 of the Rules on the Stamps of Civil Procedure, Etc. (hereinafter “Identification Rule”) provides that “When the economic benefits of several claims asserted by one lawsuit are identical or overlapping, they shall be absorption within the overlapping scope, and the value of the highest claim among them shall be the same as the lawsuit.” This absorption rule applies to the Defendants who have filed an appeal under the joint name by a single petition of appeal against the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the above consolidation claim.”

However, even if economic benefits are identical or overlapping among the Defendants, recognition is, in principle, of the nature of judicial fees for the pertinent procedural acts, and the recognition attached to the petition of appeal can be considered in the judgment of the appropriateness of the pertinent petition of appeal. Therefore, in a case where the Defendants file an appeal by dividing into several petition of appeal, whether it is calculated on the basis of a separate lawsuit within the scope to which they object separately in accordance with Article 24 of the recognition rules is applied, shall be attached to the petition of appeal. Therefore, in a case where either of the Defendant files an appeal by attaching stamps to the petition of appeal in the name of a single defendant first submitted the petition of appeal, even if another Defendant files an appeal by attaching them to the petition of appeal in the name of a joint name including the Defendant’s consent, the validity of affixing up the first submitted petition of appeal cannot be invoked

However, in cases where, without attaching a revenue stamp, a new petition of appeal filed in the name of a single defendant, along with another defendant within the period of appeal, is submitted within the period of appeal, and a revenue stamp is attached thereto (the same shall apply to cases where the failure to attach a revenue stamp to the petition of appeal in the name of the original joint owner has been attached pursuant to an order to recognize or revise a single petition of appeal in the name of the joint owner). Therefore, within the same extent as economic benefits overlap, it is unnecessary to separately attach a revenue stamp to the petition

B. Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. filed an appeal by attaching both stamps prescribed in the petition of appeal under the name of the sole person, and thereafter, the Defendant filed an appeal by submitting a petition of appeal under the sole name, and thereafter, even if Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. submitted a new petition of appeal on November 11, 2009, which was included in the name of the appellant, again, the validity of attaching stamps attached to the petition of appeal under its name cannot be invoked.

Therefore, the presiding judge of the first instance court's order to correct the stamp under the name of the defendant alone on November 9, 2009, issued to the petition of appeal of November 10, 2009, in which the order to correct the stamp itself was still not implemented. Therefore, the presiding judge of the first instance court's measure rejecting the above petition of appeal on this ground is lawful, and the order of the court below that maintained it in the same purport does not err in the misapprehension and application of the Act on the Stamps Attached for Civil Procedure and Civil Litigation, etc. The Re-appellant's argument on this ground

C. However, in light of the contents of the first instance judgment against the Defendant, etc., the petition of appeal filed on November 11, 2009 under the joint name of the Defendant, etc., included in the name of the appellant, even if the petition of appeal was dismissed as of November 9, 2009, is still valid. Inasmuch as the Defendant’s legal representative attached stamps on the petition of appeal under the above joint name based on the large amount of bars semiconductor, which is the largest scope of dissatisfaction, the Defendant’s legal representative, as to the petition of appeal under the above joint name, as long as the scope of dissatisfaction overlaps with the economic benefits from the Defendant, etc., the Defendant fulfilled his/her legal liability for stamp payment in accordance with the petition of appeal under the above joint name pursuant to Article 20 of the Stamp Rules. Therefore, even if the petition of appeal was dismissed as of November 11, 2009, the Defendant’s complaint under the name of the joint name of the Defendant, such as the Defendant, etc. is dismissed, barring any special circumstance, the first instance court should clarify the reappeal of this case.

The Supreme Court Order 98Ma938 dated July 27, 1998, referred to by the court below, concerning a case concerning the assertion that the appellant, who did not attach a stamp, submitted a new petition of appeal in the name of joint appellant with another appellant who had already attached a stamp after the expiration of the period of appeal, while submitting a new petition of appeal in the name of joint appellant with the stamp attached to another appellant’s petition of appeal, and that he also performed the duty to affix the stamp,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)