According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below is clear that the defendants' domicile in the damages claim case of this case and the illegal act of this case are Seoul, and therefore, the court below has jurisdiction in the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court, which is the competent court. However, it is clear that the plaintiffs' domicile in the main case of this case is Gwangju and Seoyangyang-gun, and its cause of claim is damages claim for tort of the defendants. Since it is obvious that the defendant's domicile has jurisdiction in accordance with Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Act as the plaintiffs' domicile, the Gwangju District Court has no jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no ground to hold that the Gwangju District Court has jurisdiction. Further, the investigation records and evidence related to the illegal act of this case are in Seoul, and it is clear that the judgment of the court below did not admit the re-appellant's assertion on the ground that the defendant's delay in considerable damages or lawsuit under Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act was caused in Gwangju, and there is no error in the judgment below, and there is no violation of law as well.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)