1. The decision of the court of first instance rejected the appeal by rendering a decision that the period for filing the objection is not a peremptory period, and thus, the subsequent completion of the litigation cannot be permitted, and thus, the objection as to the case after the lapse of the period for filing the objection is unlawful. The court below rejected the appeal by supporting the decision of the court of first instance that the grounds for revoking the decision of the court of first instance cannot be discovered.

2. In principle, the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act provides that a party’s statement shall be heard before a trial on a fine for negligence case, and the public prosecutor’s opinion shall be presented after a year, and the parties and the public prosecutor may file an immediate appeal against this trial, while Article 279 of the Act provides that the court may hear the party’s statement when it is reasonable, and instead allow the court to proceed with a trial on a fine for negligence pursuant to the summary procedure, the parties and the public prosecutor may file an objection within one week from the date on which the decision is notified, and if there is a legitimate objection, the court shall hear the party’s statement and re-examine the trial.

In addition, as long as an administrative fine is a punishment, legal stability is required, so it is reasonable to view that the judgment becomes final and conclusive if the period for raising an objection is excessive, and therefore, if the court cannot cancel or change the judgment ex officio after the period for raising an objection expires, it is natural to interpret Article 19(3) of the same Act.

3. The objections set forth above are not related to the higher court, such as an immediate appeal, but they are not different in the purport of objection to a trial. Thus, in a case where the parties cannot comply with the period for filing an objection due to a cause not attributable to them by applying Article 22 of the same Act mutatis mutandis to the period for filing an objection, it shall be reasonable to deem that the neglected act may be completed only within one week after the cause ceases to exist.

4. Therefore, the order of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the completion of procedural acts. Thus, the reappeal of this issue is justified and remanded to the court below for a trial as to the existence or absence of a cause attributable to the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)