[1] Method of appeal in a case where a motion for exclusion or challenge against a judge belonging to the appellate court of a district court is dismissed or dismissed (=re-appeal to the Supreme Court)

[2] In a case where an applicant filed an immediate appeal against the decision dismissed by the collegiate panel of the competent court, a collegiate panel of the district court, which is the appellate court, to send records to the high court, and the high court rejected the appeal, the case holding that the Supreme Court revoked the decision and treats the applicant's reappeal as a reappeal against the decision made by the collegiate panel of the district court, on the ground that the court without authority to make the decision

[3] In a case where a final judgment was rendered on a case on the merits despite a motion for challenge against a judge, whether there is a benefit in rendering a trial on the motion for challenge (negative)

[1] In light of the provisions of Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act, the decision of the appellate court should be contested by re-appealing the decision of the appellate court to the Supreme Court. In a case where a decision of rejection under Article 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Act or a decision of dismissal by the collegiate panel of the competent court has been made due to the filing of a motion of exclusion or challenge against a judge belonging to the appellate court, it shall be deemed as the same as the decision of

[2] Where an applicant filed an immediate appeal against a decision to dismiss a motion for challenge against a judge belonging to the collegiate panel of the district court which is the appellate court, the appellate court sent the petition to the Supreme Court and sent the records as reappeal to the appellate court although it did not request the appellate court to dismiss the appeal, the case affirming the Supreme Court's revocation on the ground that the appellate court's decision was not authorized to make the appellate court's decision, and treating the applicant's reappeal as reappeal against the collegiate panel of the district court's decision

[3] Notwithstanding the application for challenge against a judge, in case where the court in charge of the case has sentenced the final judgment on the case on the merits in accordance with the proviso of Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, the purpose of the application for challenge to exclude the judge in charge from the trial of the case has disappeared, so there is no interest in the trial on the application

[1] Articles 45(1), 46, 47(2), and 442 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 45(1), 47(2), and 442 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 48 and 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

[1] Supreme Court Order 2004Ma1184 dated April 28, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 999), Supreme Court Order 2007Mo726 dated April 14, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 715) / [3] Supreme Court Order 90Du21 dated June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1938) (Gong193Ha, 2932) dated September 27, 1993

Re-appellant

Daejeon High Court Order 2008Ra21 dated March 6, 2008

The order of the court below is revoked. The reappeal is dismissed.

1. Ex officio determination

Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "A reappeal may be made only when it is required for reasons of violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders, or rules that have affected the trial on the decision of the appellate court, the appellate court, or the appellate court." Thus, with respect to the decision of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Order 2004S19, Apr. 28, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, in a case where a decision of rejection under Article 45 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act or a decision of rejection by the collegiate panel of the competent court is made on the ground of the filing of a request for exclusion or challenge with respect to the judge belonging to the appellate court, the decision shall be deemed to be the same as the decision of the appellate court, and the decision shall be contested with

According to the records, the Re-Appellant filed an immediate appeal against a judge belonging to the Panel Division of the Cheongju District Court, the appellate court, and then filed an appeal against the ruling dismissing the above challenge. Thus, the above court should regard it as reappeal and send records to the Daejeon High Court, which is the appellate court, to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fact that it is to be re-appeal, and the court of original judgment dismissed the appeal. Thus, the court of original judgment shall be revoked as long as the court of original judgment did not have authority. Thus, the reappeal of this case shall be treated as a reappeal against the ruling of the Panel Panel Division of the above Cheongju District Court, the appellate court of appeal.

2. Judgment on the grounds of reappeal

Notwithstanding the application for challenge against a judge, in cases where the court in charge of the case has sentenced the final judgment on the case on the merits in accordance with the proviso of Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, the purpose of the application for challenge is to exclude the judge in charge from the trial of the case. Therefore, there is no benefit in the trial on the application for challenge (see Supreme Court Order 90Du21, Jun. 14, 1991, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the decision of the collegiate division of the above Cheongju District Court which dismissed the motion of this case on the ground that the final judgment on the case on January 8, 2008 was rendered and the interest in the trial on the motion of this case was extinguished, notwithstanding the applicant's motion of challenge, is justifiable, and it is difficult to deem that there was a violation of the Constitution, Act, order or rule that affected

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below is revoked, and the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)