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

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

Supreme Court Order 86Na157 dated February 4, 1987 (Gong1993Sang, 1451)

Special Appellants

other party corporation

Supreme Court Order 2009Reda97 Dated February 3, 2009

The special appeal of this case is dismissed.

ex officio deemed.

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 appeal under Article 439 of the same Act, and there is no separate provision stipulating that such order may be subject to appeal (see Supreme Court Order 86Do157, Feb. 4, 1987, etc.). In addition, if a complaint or a petition of appeal is dismissed due to failing to correct a stamp in accordance with an order to correct a stamp, the order to correct stamp has the nature of an intermediate trial subject to an appeal along with the order to dismiss the complaint or the petition of appeal, and thus does not constitute “uncompetible order” subject to a special complaint under Article 449 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, the special complaint in 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)