The appeal of this case is dismissed on the ground that the appeal of this case was filed by the Seoul District Criminal Court Incheon Support single Judge, the first instance court, on the ground that when the cause of the appeal was changed to the price of goods during the deliberation of the case of the claim of promissory note payment of KRW 15,00,00,00, the cause of the claim was the cause of objection against the transfer decision to the said Support Panel Division, which is the cause of the competent jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and that where the court investigates the jurisdiction of the case ex officio and transfers the case to the competent court on the ground that the case is not under its jurisdiction, unlike the case of transfer under Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act, the decision of transfer is not to be

However, according to Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Act, an immediate appeal may be filed with respect to a decision of transfer. Since the decision of transfer provides that an immediate appeal may be filed with respect to the decision of transfer, and the decision of transfer does not have any restriction on a person’s own appeal immediately upon the request of a party, it cannot be said that there is no appeal with respect to the decision of transfer ex officio (which is different from the case of rejection of an ex officio request for transfer).

According to the records, since the above transfer decision was transferred to the same support collegiate division, there is no disadvantage to the re-appellant due to transfer, and according to the plaintiff's preparatory documents, the re-appellant is jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay for the goods to the plaintiff of the joint defendant joint defendant corporation in the name of the joint defendant corporation, and as long as other circumstances do not seem to exist, it shall be called a debt (refer to Article 467 (2) of the Civil Code). Thus, the above support decision has jurisdiction over the location of the plaintiff's head office, and therefore, the court's appeal that has no jurisdiction is groundless.

Therefore, the reason for the original decision is that the conclusion that the appeal by the Re-Appellant is justifiable. Therefore, this reappeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)