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 provided for in Article 449 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is subject to special appeal (negative)

Articles 254, 439, and 449 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 2009Da35 Decided March 27, 2009

Applicant

Chuncheon District Court Order 201Na2986 dated January 25, 2012

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 “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.). In addition, 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 it does not fall under “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, the special appeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)