No objection or appeal may be raised against the order to make up the presiding judge, and the permission for an extension of the period for revision shall belong to the discretion of the presiding judge.

No objection or appeal may be raised against the order of the presiding judge to correct the complaint, and whether or not permission for an application for extension of the period for correction shall belong to the discretion of the presiding judge.

Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 69Ra13 delivered on June 11, 1969

The reappeal is dismissed.

Re-Appellant’s re-appellant’s ground of appeal

The argument that the assessment should be made based on the rent transaction amount of the building that gushes the instant lawsuit is nothing more than an independent opinion, but the court below is unable to raise an objection or appeal against the order to correct the gushes of the presiding judge, and whether to allow the application for extension of the period for correction is left at the discretion of the presiding judge, and the judgment is unnecessary, and even if the records are recorded, the judgment that the appellant's assertion on this issue is groundless is just, and even if it is determined that the presiding judge's rejection order is correct, it is not reasonable to determine the original decision that the reasons such as the theory of the lawsuit cannot be found, and therefore, the argument is groundless

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)