Whether an objection or appeal may be filed against the order of the presiding judge to correct the recognition of a complaint or a petition for appeal (negative), and whether an order to correct the recognition constitutes “unappealable order” as a subject of special appeal under Article 449 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

Articles 254, 399, 402, 425, 439, and 449 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 2009Da35 Decided March 27, 2009 Supreme Court Order 2012Da46 Decided March 27, 2012

Special Appellants

Seoul Central District Court Order 2012Na25592 dated October 30, 2014

The special appeal shall be dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

An order of the presiding judge to supplement or correct a stamp concerning a complaint or a petition of appeal does not fall under the “order or order dismissing a petition for a lawsuit procedure” under Article 439 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is generally subject to an appeal under Article 439 of the same Act, and there is no separate provision stipulating that such order may be subject to an appeal (see Supreme Court Order 2009Da35, Mar. 27, 2009, etc.). Moreover, if a complaint or a petition of appeal is dismissed because the stamp pursuant to an order to supplement or correct a stamp is not corrected, the order to supplement or correct a stamp has the nature of an intermediate trial subject to an appeal along with the written order to dismiss the complaint or the petition of appeal, and does not fall under the “uncompetible order” as provided for in Article 449 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, the special appeal of this case is unlawful as it is against a judgment that cannot be subject to a special complaint, and thus, is unlawful.

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the special appeal of this case. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)