[1] Whether the grounds for appeal under Article 424(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act may be deemed as grounds for appeal in a case where the statement of reasons is omitted or unclear in the written judgment (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an appellate court rendered a judgment by public notice, whether only the matters necessary to specify the reasons for the request in accordance with Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act and the judgment under Article 216(2) of the same Act can be briefly indicated (negative)

[1] A written judgment shall state the reasons therefor, and the reasons for the written judgment must indicate the parties’ allegations and other decisions on the means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is justifiable (Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The purport of the Act to state the reasons for the written judgment is to verify the rationality and objectivity of fact-finding and the selection, application, and prosecution of laws and regulations conducted in the trial process in order to ensure that the process of judgment derived from the method of deriving the conclusion by applying laws and regulations to specific facts acknowledged by evidence is unreasonable or not subjective. Thus, the reasons for the written judgment is that such process is rational and objective, and if such entry is omitted or unclear, the grounds for the final appeal under Article 424(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act are the grounds for final appeal.

[2] Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the judgment of the court of first instance constitutes “a judgment where the defendant is notified of the date by public notice under Articles 194 through 196 of the Civil Procedure Act and fails to appear on the date of pleading” (hereinafter “judgment by public notice”), only the matters necessary to specify the grounds for the request in the written judgment and the matters concerning the judgment under Article 216(2) of the same Act may be briefly indicated (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act). Meanwhile, the provisions concerning the procedure of first instance as stipulated in Chapters 1 through 3 of Part II of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appellate procedure (Article 408 of the Civil Procedure Act), and Article 208(3)3 of the same Act does not separately stipulate. Rather, the judgment of the court of first instance may be quoted when the appellate court has stated the grounds for the judgment, but where the judgment of the court of first instance is made pursuant to Article 208(3)3(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, the said judgment may not be cited.

[1] Articles 208(1)4 and (2), and 424(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 208(2) and (3)3, 216(2), 408, and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da38624 Decided January 28, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 396) Supreme Court Decision 2014Da53110 Decided December 24, 2014

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Daeho, Attorneys Park Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

puned Loan Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dongyang, Attorneys Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2019Na22844 decided July 23, 2020

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. A. A. A. A. The reasons for the judgment shall be stated, and the reasons for the judgment shall be to the extent that it can be recognized that the order is justifiable (Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring entry of the reasons for the judgment is to verify the reasonableness and objectivity of fact-finding and the selection, application, and prosecution of laws and regulations conducted in the trial process in order to ensure that the process of determination conducted in the way of deriving the conclusion by applying the specific facts and regulations acknowledged by evidence is not unreasonable or subjective. Thus, the reasons for the judgment shall be stated in the necessary decision in the process that leads to the conclusion so that the process can be clarified as being rational and objective. Where such entry is omitted or unclear, the grounds for appeal under Article 424(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da38624, Jan. 28, 2005; 2014Da31514, Dec. 24, 2014).

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the judgment of the court of first instance constitutes “a judgment where the defendant was notified of the date by public notice under Articles 194 through 196 of the Civil Procedure Act and fails to appear on the date for pleading (hereinafter “decision by public notice”), only the matters necessary to specify the grounds for making a request in the written judgment and the matters concerning the judgment under Article 216(2) of the same Act may be briefly indicated (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act). Meanwhile, the provisions concerning the first instance procedure under Chapters 1 through 3 of Part II of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appellate trial proceedings (Article 408 of the Civil Procedure Act), but no provisions that apply mutatis mutandis under Article 208(3)3 of the same Act are separately stated. Rather, the judgment of the court of first instance may be cited when the appellate court has stated the grounds for a final judgment, but where the judgment of the court of first instance has been made pursuant to Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, the said judgment may not be cited.

2. Nevertheless, in the case where the plaintiffs appealed against the judgment of the first instance that dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims for confirmation of the existence of the obligation of this case, the court below revoked the judgment of the first instance that the defendant would not appear on the date of pleading after being notified by public notice and accepted the above claims of the plaintiffs by applying Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and did not indicate the judgment as to the allegations by the parties and other means of attack and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the order is justified.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby failing to state the reasons for the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)