Daegu hydrosung-gu

2.B

Daegu Western-gu

Daegu hydrosung-gu

D Representative Director D

2. The E Company;

Gangnam-gu Seoul

Representative Director F

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

A. On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff (appellant; hereinafter the Plaintiff) filed a claim suit against the Defendant (the other party; hereinafter the Defendant), Daegu Metropolitan City, and Suwon Metropolitan City, including the return of the sale price (2010Gahap959). On May 3, 2012, the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment that all the claims of the Plaintiffs are dismissed, and filed a petition of appeal on May 22, 2012.

B. On June 20, 2012, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered the Plaintiffs to pay KRW 682,500 and the transmission monthly charges, respectively, within seven days from the date of receiving the order from the Plaintiffs on June 20, 2012, by submitting the above petition of appeal.

C. The court of first instance sent the order of correction to the Plaintiffs on July 12, 2012 by registered mail. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff A paid KRW 682,500 on July 2, 2012, and KRW 6,120 on July 9, 2012, and Plaintiff B paid KRW 682,50 on July 9, 2012, and KRW 6,120 on delivery fees to the Daegu Branch of the Daegu Branch of the new Bank, but did not submit a written confirmation of the current acceptance of the stamp, including a lawsuit, to the court of first instance.

D. On August 8, 2012, the presiding judge of the first instance court rendered an order to dismiss the petition of appeal by deeming that the Plaintiffs did not comply with the above order of correction.

2. Determination

In full view of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations on the stamp law, the rules on civil procedure, etc., the stamp rules, the rules on delivery fees, the order of correction of the recognition of the court's established rules on the delivery of the money, and the matters related to the payment of the money (re-date 92-4), including the guidelines for handling affairs (re-day 87-4), etc. under the enforcement of the Rules on the Service Fees, the prepayment of the service fees, and the procedure for the payment of the money in lieu thereof, the payment of the money equivalent to the stamp, etc. according to the order of correction shall be effective as of the date of payment of the money to the receiving bank of the service fees prescribed in Article 3 of the Rules on the Service Fees. With regard to the payment of the money equivalent to the stamp, etc. pursuant to the order of correction, the act of the receipt officer, etc. along with the written correction, etc. is merely a procedure to confirm the payment of the money in the litigation records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma378, Aug.).

As seen earlier, insofar as it is obvious that Plaintiff A paid an amount equivalent to the recognition at the Daegu court of the receiving bank, which is the receiving bank, prior to the rejection of the petition of appeal in accordance with the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court on July 2, 2012, and Plaintiff B’s order on July 9, 2012, the effect of recognition and correction became effective and the above order has been complied with properly, and the validity of correction cannot be denied on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not submit the above certificate of “paid” to the court of first instance.

Therefore, the order of the first instance court, which accepted the petition of appeal by the plaintiffs, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the order of the first instance court is unfair with different conclusions, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiffs' appeal to revoke the order of the first instance court.

April 5, 2013

Judges Cha fixed-line

Judges Park Jong-dae