Where a family court has lodged an appeal against a case which is not a matter to be tried by the family court under Article 2 of the Family Trial Act, cases where the appellate court does not judge the case in accordance with the appellate procedure of the general civil case (the jurisdiction of the family court shall not be exclusive jurisdiction).

A. The judgment authority of a family court stipulated in Article 32-5 of the former Court Organization Act (No. 1373 of July 31, 63) and Article 2 of the former Family Trial Act (repealed by Act No. 4300 of December 31, 90) shall not be deemed to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction, since there is no express provision in the above law or the Family Trial Act.

B. The Seoul Family Court is not subject to the conciliation and adjudication of the family court, and the claim for damages due to the infringement of the right is not subject to the conciliation and adjudication of the family court, but the Seoul Family Court cannot be viewed as an illegal measure. However, as the appeal against the above judgment was brought before the Seoul High Court which is the original court, the parties cannot assert the violation of the right of the first instance court under Article 381 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the original court shall not be able to hold a trial under Article 389 of the same Act. In such a case, the original court shall deliberate and decide the case

Articles 2, 381 and 389 of the Family Trial Act, Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act

Claimant

Egresponding

Seoul Family Court of the first instance and the Seoul High Court of the second instance, July 15, 1965 65Ra8 delivered on July 15, 1965

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

This case is a case for which the claimant seeks compensation against the respondent for damages caused by infringement of non-party rights on the ground that the respondent's wife was inter-party, and Article 32-5 of Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act which provides the judgment authority of the family court under the same Act or Article 2 (1) of the Family Trial Act which provides for the scope of application of the same Act shall be subject to mediation and trial of the family court, as shown in records, it cannot be said that the Seoul Family Court accepted the application for mediation of this case and applied for the performance of adjudication, and the judgment of the above family court shall be equivalent to the jurisdiction of the first instance court, and even if the procedure of the trial and trial of this case is different, it shall not be deemed that this case belongs to exclusive jurisdiction, so long as the appeal of the Seoul Family Court has continued to exist in the appellate court, the court below's decision shall not be deemed to have violated the law of the first instance court's jurisdiction under Article 381 of the Civil Procedure Act, but it shall not be deemed to have been unlawful and unlawful in the appellate court's trial procedure of this case.

Therefore, without considering the need to determine each point of appeal on the grounds of appeal No. 2 of the respondent's Go Jae-ho and the ground of appeal on the same leapology, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)