According to records, the following facts are recognized.

On August 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant with Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap66841, which was the Seoul Central District Court 2012. The Defendant appointed a law firm as the litigation representative and granted the right to “filing or withdrawing an appeal or appeal.” On January 25, 2013, the court rendered a ruling accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant’s litigation representative on February 4, 2013.

On February 15, 2013, the Defendant’s attorney did not pay KRW 792,500 among stamp units upon filing a petition of appeal. On February 19, 2013, the presiding judge of the first instance court issued an order to pay KRW 792,500 to the Defendant within seven days from the date on which the order was served on the Defendant. A certified copy of the order of correction was served on the Defendant’s attorney on February 22, 2013.

On March 6, 2013, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered the first instance court to dismiss the defendant's petition on the ground that the defendant did not correct the stamps within the period specified in the order of correction.

2. Defendant’s assertion

Although the Defendant’s attorney has the authority to file an appeal, there is no authority to receive the order of stamp correction, and thus, the order of stamp correction issued to the Defendant’s attorney has no effect. Even if the Defendant’s attorney has the authority to receive the stamp correction order, the Defendant’s attorney did not deliver the contents of the order of correction to the Defendant. The Defendant paid the stamp amount short of the same date on March 11, 2013 after receiving the notice of rejection of the petition of appeal, and paid the stamp amount short of the same date.

3. Determination

In order for an attorney to file an appeal, he/she shall obtain the authority separately from the parties to the lawsuit (Article 90(2)3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

The defendant delegated a lawsuit in the first instance court, and conferred the authority to submit a petition of appeal to the attorney. The right to submit a petition of appeal shall be deemed to include the authority to revise stamps and to receive an order to correct stamps. The reasons are as follows.

(1) The term "right to submit a petition of appeal to which no defects are found exist" means the right to submit a petition of appeal to which no defects are found. In cases where any defects exist as stamps, etc. are not affixed to the petition of appeal, it is natural that the attorney who has submitted the petition of appeal should supplement the petition of appeal. In such cases, the right to receive the order to receive the order to

(2) Where an attorney has obtained the authority to conduct the principal procedural acts, deeming that the authority to conduct the procedural acts incidental thereto is also obtained concurrently shall proceed smoothly, and it is reasonable for the convenience of the parties. The authority to revise the defects by receiving an order to correct the defects in the petition of appeal shall be incidental to the submission of a petition of appeal.

(3) Since the submission of a petition of appeal and an order to correct stamp are procedural acts conducted in the first instance court, it is reasonable to regard that the legal representative of the first instance court has the right to receive an order to correct stamp, in light of the litigation economy,

When an order of stamp correction is served on the defendant's attorney, the service to the defendant shall take effect. Whether the defendant's attorney has actually delivered the contents of the order of correction to the defendant shall not affect the validity of the service.

The measures taken by the presiding judge of the first instance court dismissed the petition of appeal, as the defendant¡¯s attorney fails to comply with the order within the fixed period, after being legally served with the order to dismiss the petition of appeal. Even if he has paid the insufficient amount of stamps after being served with the order to dismiss the petition of appeal, the validity of the already

4. Conclusion

The order of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)