[증권거래법위반][공1983.2.15.(698)261]
The base date for receipt of an appeal filed in the name of the district court that received the high court office;
In the event that a petition of appeal filed in the future of the Seoul Civil Court, which is the cause of the first instance court, was received by mail and was received in the office of the Seoul Civil Court, and was re-receiving to the office of the Seoul Civil District Court, if the office of the Seoul Civil Court was engaged in the business of direct reception of documents submitted in the future of the Seoul Civil Court, it should be considered that the Seoul High Court's office complies with the period of filing an appeal based on
Articles 414 and 415 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Seoul Central District Court Order 10.13, 82Ra597 dated October 13, 1982
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below dismissed the appeal of this case on July 15, 1982 on the ground that the appeal of this case was received at the court of second instance, since the appeal of this case was received at the court of second instance, the above appeal of this case was filed immediately with the lapse of the period of appeal, and it was unlawful.
However, according to the records, the re-appellant, after receiving the decision of disposition of a fine for negligence like the above decision of the court below, submitted a letter of appeal, which was expressed in the name of the Seoul Civil Service District Court, and received in the office of Seoul Civil Service Seoul High Court on July 22, 1982, and received it again to the office of general receipt of the Seoul Civil Service District Court on the following day. If the office of Seoul Civil Service was engaged in the business of direct receipt of documents submitted in the future of the Seoul Civil Service District Court on duty at the time of Seoul High Court on May 25, 1982, the re-appellant must consider whether the period of filing the appeal is complied with on the basis of the date received by the office of the Seoul Civil Service
Although the court below should have examined the contents of the business of direct accommodation handled by the office of Seoul High Court on Duty and have judged whether or not the appeal period of this case was excessive, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion due to insufficient deliberation.
Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)