[항소장각하][공2003.2.15.(172),423]
[1] The measures to be taken by the Supreme Court in a case where a request for quasi-deliberation was made by entering the ruling of rejection of the petition of appeal on the order to dismiss the petition of appeal in the Supreme Court (=transfer to the court of first instance)
[2] In a case where the presiding judge of the first instance court rejected a petition of appeal after issuing an order of rejection of the petition of appeal after submitting a petition of appeal within the period for filing a petition of appeal, whether it may be deemed that there was omission of judgment in making a quasi-examination inducement (affirmative)
[1] In a case where the presiding judge of the first instance court filed an application for quasi-examination with the Supreme Court by stating that there was an omission of decision to dismiss a petition of appeal by the presiding judge of the first instance court as the object of quasi-examination, after issuing an order to dismiss a petition of appeal, and that there was an omission of decision to dismiss a petition of appeal by the presiding judge of the first instance court, if the ground for quasi-examination is about the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court by itself or according to the record of litigation, the intention of the quasi-examination applicant is subject to the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court, and it is reasonable to transfer the application to the first instance court, which is the
[2] In a case where the first instance court's rejection of a petition of appeal after issuing an order to dismiss the petition of appeal after submitting the petition of appeal within the period for filing a petition of appeal, the order to dismiss the petition of appeal shall be deemed to have a ground for quasi-examination corresponding to "when omitting any judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 461 of the same Act.
[1] Articles 34, 451, and 461 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 451(1)9 and 461 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Order 94Da413 dated October 15, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3063)/ [2] Supreme Court Order 2001Mo442 dated August 20, 2001, Supreme Court Order 2002Da555 dated September 30, 2002
Quasi-Review Applicant (Applicant)
Quasi-Review Respondent (Respondent)
Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3789 Delivered on August 22, 2001
The case is transferred to the Seoul District Court.
In a case where the presiding judge of the first instance court filed an application for quasi-deliberation with the Supreme Court by stating that there was an omission of decision to dismiss the petition of appeal in accordance with the quasi-examination order issued by the presiding judge of the first instance court as the object of quasi-examination, with regard to the case which was dismissed after issuing an order to dismiss the petition of appeal, if the ground for quasi-examination relates to the order issued by the presiding judge of the first instance court, and it is evident according to its assertion itself or the record of trial, the intention of the quasi-examination applicant is limited to the order issued by the presiding judge of the first instance court, and submitted the application for quasi-examination by erroneously stating the indication of the decision to dismiss the quasi-examination (see Supreme Court Order 94Da413, Oct. 15, 1994, etc.).
According to the records, the Seoul District Court rendered a ruling of rejection of the provisional disposition on September 26, 200 between the quasi-Review applicant and quasi-Review applicant. On October 13, 2000, the quasi-Review applicant served with the original copy of the judgment was sent by registered mail to the Seoul District Court on October 14, 200, but the employee in charge of receipt of the petition of appeal on October 16, 200, sent the original copy of the judgment to the Seoul District Court on October 16, 200, but the appellate court rejected the petition of appeal on October 16, 200, by 16, 200, 200, 200, 200, 205, 206, 20, 20, 16, 20, 16, 20, 20, 16, 20, 20, 20, 20, 16, 20, 20, 206, 2, 2, 16, 2, 20, 2, 3, 2, 3.
According to the above facts, an applicant for quasi-deliberation was served with the original copy of the above judgment on September 30, 200 and filed the petition of appeal on October 14, 200, which was within the filing period of appeal. Thus, the order to dismiss the petition of appeal of this case was a quasi-deliberation corresponding to "when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 461 of the same Act" (see Supreme Court Order 2001Hun-Da442 delivered on August 20, 200, Supreme Court Order 2002Da555 delivered on September 30, 202). Thus, if it is obvious that the grounds for quasi-deliberation of this case alleged by the applicant for quasi-deliberation is related to the order of the presiding judge or the court of first instance, it is reasonable to view that the applicant for quasi-deliberation was subject to quasi-deliberation as having presented the above order of the presiding judge's opinion or quasi-adjudication data.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to transfer this case to the first instance court, which is a quasi-deliberation court.
Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)