Whether the above rejection order may be revoked pursuant to Article 416(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in a case where a reappeal is filed against the rejection of the petition of appeal on the grounds that the shortage or amount of the appeal was not overlapped, and simultaneously where stamp is overlapped.

If the presiding judge has dismissed the complaint for the reason that there was no correction as to the overlapping of the complaint, the court to which the presiding judge belongs, even if the complaint was overlapped before the order became final and conclusive due to immediate appeal, may not correct the judgment under Article 416 (1) of this Act.

Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 416(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

68No49 decided July 29, 1968

Appellant 1 and two others (Attorneys Lee Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 68Na769,770 dated May 31, 1968, 68Na769, 770 decided May 23, 1968, 68Na769, 770

The decision of the court of original on May 31, 1968 shall be reversed.

All reappeals against the order dated May 23, 1968 by the presiding judge of the court below are dismissed.

1. As to the judgment rendered on March 12, 1968 when mobilization was filed with respect to the claim for transfer registration of ownership in Seoul Civil District Court 67A568 and 12167, the re-appellant 1 and the re-appellant 2 filed an appeal, but the amount of revenue stamps that were overlapped in the gushesheshe had failed to reach 6,540 won below the legal fixed amount, the presiding judge of the court below issued an order for the re-appeal as of May 6 of the same year and rejected the appeal as of May 23 of the same year on the ground that the above Appellant rejected the appeal as of May 23 of the same year on the ground that the above Appellant was not corrected within the prescribed period, and the court below recognized the reappeal as reasonable as of May 31 of the same year, and revoked the order as to the above Appellant's dismissal order based on Article 416 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court below's ruling as to the re-appeal and its ruling as to the above Appellant's appeal shall be dismissed.

2. First, we judge the re-appellant 3's grounds of reappeal.

In case where the presiding judge rejects the order in accordance with the provisions of Articles 231 and 232 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 378 and Article 395 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appellate court and the court of final appeal), even if the order becomes final and conclusive due to an immediate appeal, the court to which the presiding judge belongs shall not correct the decision in accordance with Article 416 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, even if the party members cannot correct the decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (1) 3 of the Court Organization Act (Article 68Hun-Ba9 of July 29, 1968). Accordingly, the above opinions inconsistent with the previous decision of the party members by referring to the above decision of 68Hun-Ba49 of July 29, 1968).

3. The grounds for re-appeal by the Re-Appellant 1 and 2 are determined as follows.

The summary of the theory of the lawsuit was added to KRW 6,540,00, which is less than the amount of revenue stamps to be added to the petition of appeal that was not added before the second appeal was filed against the order to dismiss the petition of appeal issued by the presiding judge on May 23, 1968 in the court below at the same time before the order was issued. Although the above order to dismiss the petition of appeal was changed, it cannot be a ground for correction of the judgment pursuant to Article 416(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is the time of the previous objection, and it is not recognized that there was a violation of the Constitution, legal order or rule that can serve as a ground for the re-appellant who can investigate the above order ex officio on the record. Therefore, it cannot be accepted, and it is all dismissed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with the consistent opinion of all participating judges.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong and Ma-dong Na-Gyeong