According to the records, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants against the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap29028, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff’s claims on October 31, 2008, and the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on November 17, 2008.

B. On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal to the above court (hereinafter “instant petition of appeal”). The presiding judge of the first instance court issued an order to pay KRW 750,000 and delivery fees of KRW 108,720 on December 10, 2008 to the Plaintiff within seven days from the date of service of the order, and the order reached the Plaintiff on December 16, 2008.

C. On January 2, 2009, the presiding judge dismissed the petition of appeal of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above order of correction.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

As the grounds of appeal of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the non-party 1, the representative of the plaintiff, was unable to respond to the order of correction as he was detained in another case.

However, considering the above recognition and the number of amendments to service charges, the fact that the representative of the plaintiff is detained cannot be deemed to constitute failure to observe the period stipulated in the order to correct the stamp due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the order to dismiss the petition of appeal by the presiding judge of the first instance court is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order to dismiss the petition of appeal by the presiding judge of the first instance court is justifiable, so the appeal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Byung-chul (Presiding Judge) Do-Jon Constitution