beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.11.01 2017가합663

사해행위취소 등

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. First of all, determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is made, we examine ex officio whether the instant lawsuit is lawful.

A. The purport and cause of the claim and legal representative of the party and legal representative shall be stated in the complaint (Article 249(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases contrary thereto and where stamps are not attached to the complaint, the presiding judge may order the plaintiff to correct the defects within a reasonable time fixed by a junior administrative officer, etc. (Article 254(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where the defects cannot be corrected as illegal lawsuits, the presiding judge may dismiss the suit by judgment without holding any pleadings.

(Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act).

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 15, 2017 and did not affix revenue stamps to the complaint. Accordingly, on May 19, 2017, the chief clerk of the instant lawsuit filed the instant lawsuit, and on May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff the data of the land price calculated by the head of the Si/Gun according to the land price comparison table provided by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Article 8(2) of the Rules on the Public Notice and Appraisal of Real Estate Price Act, and submitted the data that can be calculated on May 19, 2017, “A party indication correction request is made,” and the Plaintiff did not comply with the aforementioned order of correction without being served on the Plaintiff on May 19, 2017.

Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff did not correct the defects even after at least two months passed from August 2, 2017 upon receipt of an order of correction issued by the court on May 19, 2017, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it cannot be corrected.