Whether there is a benefit to dispute against the rejection of a transfer application by the first instance court after the judgment of the first instance was rendered and the case continues before the appellate court (negative)

Considering the purport of Article 381 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that the parties shall not assert the violation of jurisdiction of the court of the first instance unless the parties have exclusive jurisdiction, the court of appeal has no longer interest in dispute against the decision to dismiss the transfer application of the first instance after the first instance court is sentenced and the case has been pending in the appellate court.

Articles 35, 226, and 381 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Daegu District Court Order 91Ra5 dated March 22, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

The court below held that the re-appellant's address is Seoul and it is difficult to view that the cause of the occurrence of the accident falls under the case of substantial damage or delay in the lawsuit as stipulated in Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act, and determined additionally that the re-appellant filed an immediate appeal against the decision to dismiss the transfer application of this case and filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court of the case on the merits after the re-appellant filed an appeal against the decision to dismiss the transfer application of this case, and as long as it is not exclusive jurisdiction, it cannot assert any violation of jurisdiction. Thus, the court below

The above additional determination by the court below is just because, in light of the purport of Article 381 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that the parties shall not assert the violation of jurisdiction of the court of first instance, the appellate court shall decide that the court of first instance shall no longer have any interest in dispute against the decision to dismiss the application for transfer of the first instance after the case is pending in the appellate court, and it shall not be deemed that the court of first instance has jurisdiction over the court of first instance like the theory of lawsuit (the record reveals that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case claiming damages against the re-appellant to the court of his domicile) or that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case against the court of first instance (the record provides that the repayment of the compensation obligation shall be made in the current address of the creditor, so it shall not be deemed that there is no jurisdiction over the court of the plaintiff's domicile, which is the legal ground of the place of obligation under Article 6 of the

According to the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no reason to argue that it was derived from the misunderstanding of the purport of the original judgment.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)