[1] In a case where there is a defect in which stamps are not attached to an appeal petition, whether the legal representative separately authorized to file an appeal may correct it, and whether the presiding judge of the court below may order the above legal representative to correct the stamps (affirmative in principle)

[2] In a case where, after a rejection order has been established, there is a correction as to whether the original copy of the order is insufficient before being notified to the party, whether the rejection order may be deemed unlawful or revoked by means of the re-design (negative)

[1] The scope of the power of attorney is, in principle, limited to the pertinent instance, but if an attorney has been separately authorized to file an appeal, the authority and duty to submit an appeal, barring any special circumstances, so if there is a defect not attached to an appeal petition, the attorney may correct it, and the presiding judge of the lower court may also order the attorney to correct the stamps.

[2] As with the judgment, a judgment identical with a ruling or an order which does not require a declaration is deemed to have been established when the original copy is delivered to the junior administrative officer, etc. Therefore, inasmuch as the rejection order has already been concluded, the above rejection order may not be deemed to be unlawful, or the said order may not be revoked by means of a re-design, on the ground that the said order was revised to the point where the original copy of

[1] Articles 90(2)3, 399, and 425 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 221, 399, 425, and 446 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Order 69Ma703 dated December 8, 1969 (No. 17-4, 125) Supreme Court Order 71Ma964 dated November 29, 1971

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Order 2013Ra435 dated April 12, 2013

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The scope of the power of attorney is, in principle, limited to the relevant instance, but if an attorney has been separately authorized to file an appeal, the authority and obligation to submit an appeal, barring any special circumstances, barring any circumstances, so the attorney may correct the defects, and the presiding judge of the original instance may also order the attorney to correct the stamps.

Therefore, the court below was just in holding that the re-appellant’s right to submit a petition of appeal was included in the re-appellant’s right to submit the petition of appeal, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the termination date of the lawsuit and the delivery of the order to correct stamp, etc. by misapprehending the legal principles on the attorney’s right to submit the petition of appeal.

2. As with the judgment, a judgment identical with a ruling or an order which does not require a pronouncement is deemed to have been established when the original copy was delivered to the junior administrative officer, etc. Thus, in a case where the rejection order has already been concluded, the above rejection order was deemed to be unlawful, or not to be cancelled by the device of re-do, on the ground that the above rejection order was corrected as to whether it was insufficient before the original copy of the order was notified to the parties (see Supreme Court Order 69Ma703, Dec. 8, 1969; Supreme Court Order 71Ma964, Nov. 29, 197, etc.).

Therefore, even if the defendant corrected the shortage of stamps on March 11, 2013, and received the rejection order in the petition of appeal after the defendant corrected the shortage of stamps, the rejection order, which was concluded on March 6, 2013, is not illegal.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)