The record reveals the following facts.

A. On July 19, 2011, the appellant filed an application for a payment order against the person other than the applicant for the payment order at Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 201j 3833, and the judicial assistant officer affiliated with the above court ordered payment on August 22, 2011. However, on September 8, 2011, the above application for the payment order was filed on September 8, 201 by a person other than the above applicant’s objection, and the application for the payment order was filed as a lawsuit for the loan claim at the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 201Ga760.

B. Upon the filing of the above payment order, the appellant paid KRW 1,031,300 for the revenue stamps, and additionally paid KRW 3,023,700 on September 28, 201, which was after the filing of the objection by the applicant.

C. On October 5, 201, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered the appellant to correct KRW 6,258,000 of the revenue stamp amount within seven days from the date of service of the order, and the said order of correction was served on the appellant on October 13, 201.

D. On November 15, 201, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered the first instance court to dismiss the said complaint on the grounds that the appellant did not comply with the said order of correction.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. Appellant's assertion

On September 28, 201, when the appellant applied for a payment order, the appellant reduced the claim amount to one billion won on September 28, 201, which was after the claimant applied for a payment order, so recognition shall be calculated according to one billion won, which is the reduced claim amount, and the appellant paid all the stamp amount. Thus, the appellant asserts that the first instance court order that dismissed the appellant's complaint on the ground of the omission of recognition is unreasonable.

B. Determination

(1) In the case of filing a lawsuit, revenue stamps must be paid. If the debtor raises a legitimate objection against the payment order, the amount of revenue stamps to be paid according to the value of the subject-matter of the claim raised at the time of filing a request for the payment order (Article 472(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). If a legitimate objection is raised against the payment order, the amount of revenue stamps to be paid according to the value of the subject-matter of the lawsuit

According to the records, the appellant filed a claim against the applicant for payment order for KRW 2.788,00,000 against the other party, and the other party filed a legitimate objection against the payment order. Thus, the appellant shall pay stamp for KRW 2.788,00,00,00, which is the value of the subject matter of the lawsuit sought in the written application for payment order, and the amount of stamp to be paid by the appellant shall not vary because the appellant partially reduced the purport of the claim thereafter.

Article 254(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that since the appellant, who is the plaintiff, did not attach sufficient stamps as prescribed by the law, the presiding judge of the first instance court shall order the appellant to revise the stamp within a period of seven days, and that the appellant did not comply with the order of correction, the appellant’s complaint was dismissed pursuant to Article 254(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, there is no error in the order of rejection of the complaint on the ground that the appellant did not comply with the order of acknowledgement or correction of the presiding judge of the first

Then, the appellant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)'s tenure of office