Effect of the decision on an administrative fine with excessive filing period;

According to Article 279 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the decision of a fine for negligence by the summary judgment under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall lose its effect if there is an objection from the party or prosecutor within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. Thus, if the time limit for filing the objection exceeds the above time limit, the decision shall become final and conclusive,

Article 279 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 82Ma422 Dated July 29, 1982

Enzymsan Co.

Seoul Central District Court Order 82Ra202 Dated April 30, 1982

Seoul Central District Court Order 80Ma7826 Dated November 27, 1981

The order of the court below is reversed.

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked, and the objection of the Re-appellant shall be dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. According to Article 279 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the decision of a fine for negligence by a summary judgment under Article 279 (1) of the same Act provides that if an objection is raised by a party or prosecutor within one week from the date of receipt of the notification, the decision shall be deemed null and void. Thus, if the time limit for filing the objection exceeds the above time limit,

2. According to the records, the first instance court's decision as to the re-appellant on September 25, 1980 pursuant to the summary judgment under Article 279 (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and served on the re-appellant on October 14, 1980, the original copy of the decision was served on the re-appellant, but it is obvious that the re-appellant raised an objection against the above decision of a fine for negligence on October 24, 1980 after the lapse of one week from the Re-Appellant. Thus, the above decision of a fine for negligence should be deemed to have already become final and conclusive with the objection filing period. Accordingly, the re-appellant'

3. Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the re-appellant's objection of this case as legitimate, and accordingly rendered the disposition of the fine for negligence of this case against the re-appellant as of November 27, 1981, and the court below also maintained the above first instance court's decision as it is.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the decision of the court below is deemed sufficient for a party member to render a self-market as stated above. Thus, the decision of the court below is revoked and the re-appellant's objection is dismissed. The procedure costs after the objection are assessed against the re-appellant. It is so decided

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)