(a) Whether the right to request transfer of the party and its appeal against the judgment are legitimate;

B. Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that evidentiary materials on the lawsuit may be different from others

A. The issue of jurisdiction is a matter to be decided ex officio by the court, and therefore, a party to a lawsuit cannot file an application for transfer for the reason that he does not have jurisdiction, so even if the court did not need a trial on such application and rendered a judgment rejecting such application for transfer, an appeal against it is not allowed.

B. It is difficult to view that the circumstance that the evidentiary materials related to the lawsuit are stored in the defendant's domicile alone constitutes a case where a court other than the court having jurisdiction over the defendant's domicile has examined the case and there is a concern over causing significant damage or delay of lawsuit under Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Articles 29 and 32 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 69Ma1191 Decided January 21, 1970

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Order 80Ra6 dated April 17, 1980

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal of the re-appellant are examined.

The issue of judge's original jurisdiction is a matter of ex officio investigation by the court and can not apply for transfer because the party to the lawsuit is not able to file an application for transfer due to lack of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 69Ma191, Jan. 21, 1970).

Therefore, with regard to the ground of reappeal that the part of the court below's explanation that the Gwangju District Court had jurisdiction over the case as one of the grounds for rejection of the re-appellant's request for transfer is erroneous, the court below's decision that it is not sufficient to see that the case is likely to cause significant damage or delay of lawsuit under Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act, just because the evidence related to the lawsuit of this case is stored in the defendant's domicile, and that the evidence related to the lawsuit of this case is stored in the defendant's domicile.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case, which is premised on the misapprehension of legal principles in the order of the court below, is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)