The purport of Article 128(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 128(3) of the new Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that "the court shall keep the records of trial." The purport of the provision is that "the court shall keep the records of trial". When the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) applies no express provision concerning the competent court, if an appellant files an application for a lawsuit seeking the deferment of affixing stamps despite the presiding judge's order to correct stamp stamps or to correct stamp stamps, the presiding judge of the court shall not issue an order to dismiss an appeal and send records to the appellate court, and the appellate court shall be deemed to be in charge of the trial and examination of the petition for legal aid and the petition for appeal. In addition, if an application for the legal aid is made together with the application for appeal, the examination of the appeal is closely related to the examination of the court, and it is unreasonable to facilitate the examination of the lawsuit and to prevent it from being exploited at the same time by the court.

Article 128(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-Appellant (Appointed Party) 1 and 2 others (Attorney Long-term et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Order 2003Ka-gu1 dated January 10, 2003

Each reappeal is dismissed.

Article 128(3) of the new Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that "the court shall keep the records of the proceedings." The purport of the provision is that the court shall keep the records of the proceedings." When the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) applies no express provision concerning the competent court, if an appellant files an application for a lawsuit seeking the deferment of affixing stamps despite the presiding judge's order not to affix stamps or to correct stamps, the presiding judge of the court shall not issue an order to dismiss an appeal and send records to the appellate court, and the appellate court shall be in charge of the trial and the examination of the petition for appeal. In addition, if an application for a lawsuit structure has been made together with an application for a lawsuit structure, it is difficult to prevent the application from being used as a part of the appellate court's order to avoid the examination of the petition, and at the same time, it is not unreasonable to grant a prompt trial structure.

In light of the records, the Re-Appellants filed an application for a lawsuit with the court below in the status of the records of trial, and the court below recognized the factual relations as stated in the judgment below, and the court below determined that there is insufficient vindication as to this, since the structure of the lawsuit requires that the person who is subject to the salvage is not capable of paying the litigation costs and should not lose it. Therefore, if the application for a lawsuit structure is accepted, it is not possible to win the lawsuit with the insolvent.

In light of the purport of the above relevant provisions, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the decision on the application for lawsuit aid or violating the Constitution.

The Re-Appellant's judgment of domestic tax payment in the grounds of appeal is not appropriate to be invoked in this case to which the new Civil Procedure Act applies as a judgment at the time of application of the former Civil Procedure Act.

The grounds of reappeal shall not be accepted.

Therefore, each reappeal by the re-appellant is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)