[상고장각하명령에대한이의][미간행]
[1] The effective date of the correction, such as stamp, etc., where cash equivalent to stamp is paid in accordance with the correction order such as stamp, etc. (=the time when cash is paid to the service charge-receiving bank)
[2] Where the re-appellant paid a shortage to the receiving bank within the correction period according to the order of correction of recognition by the presiding judge of the court below, but did not submit the statement of payment to the court below, the case holding that the above order was properly corrected
[1] Articles 254, 39, and 402 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 1 and 13 of the Act on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, Etc.; Articles 27, 28, and 29 of the Rules on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, Etc.; Article 3 of the Service Fee Rules / [2] Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 1 and 13 of the Act on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, etc.; Articles 27, 28, and 29 of the Rules on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, Etc.; Article 3 of the Service Fee Rules
[1] Supreme Court Order 200Ma2434 dated May 22, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1483) Supreme Court Order 2007Ma80 dated March 30, 2007
Gyeonggi-do Family (Attorney Shin-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
other party corporation
Seoul High Court Order 2007Na85975 dated July 7, 2008
We reverse the order of the court below.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
According to the records, the court below's order was served on June 23, 2008 by the presiding judge of the court below that "the court below ordered to correct 703,000 won in the amount of stamp shortage within 7 days from the service date of the order" and paid the amount of stamp shortage to the court branch of the new bank law bureau of Korea on June 27, 2008, but did not submit a statement of stamp payment to the court below. The presiding judge of the court below determined that the Re-appellant did not comply with the order of correction and dismissed the petition of appeal by the re-appellant on July 7, 2008.
However, in full view of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations on the stamp method of civil procedure, etc., the stamp rule of civil procedure, etc., the stamp rule of the court, the order of correction of whether it is an established rule of the court's affairs and the payment in cash (re-date 92-4), and the procedure for prepayment of the service fees and the payment in cash in lieu thereof, including the guidelines for handling affairs (re-day 87-4) following the enforcement of the rules on the service fees which are established in the trial (re-date 87-4), the effects of the correction, such as acknowledgement, etc. are generated when the payment in cash is paid to the service fees collection bank as stipulated in Article 3 of the Rules on the Service Fees, and the receipt of the payment is merely a procedure for confirming the payment in the court records (see Supreme Court Order 200Ma2347, May 22, 200; Supreme Court Order 200Ma437, Mar. 37, 2007).
As seen earlier, as long as the Re-Appellant paid the amount of money that falls short of the Re-Appellant's legal branch within the correction period according to the order of affiliation and correction of the presiding judge of the court below, it shall be deemed that the Re-Appellant properly performed the correction following the above order since the effect of recognition and correction became effective. The Re-Appellant's failure to submit the above statement of payment to the court below for the correction shall not be denied.
Nevertheless, the court below's order which dismissed the petition of appeal of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to recognition and correction, or by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The ground of reappeal assigning this error is with merit.
Therefore, we reverse the order of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)