Whether an objection is filed after the completion of the judgment of an administrative fine by summary proceedings (affirmative)

Articles 22 and 279 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 81Ma280 dated September 30, 1981 (Gong1981, 14432)

Fixed Industrial Company

Seoul Central District Court Order 81Ra14 dated May 29, 1981

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The order of the court below maintained the first instance court's decision with the same view that the period for raising an objection as stipulated in Article 279 (2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act is not a peremptory term, and thus the subsequent completion of procedural acts in relation to neglect of such period is not allowed, and dismissed the

2. Article 277 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act provides that, in principle, a party’s statement shall be heard before a judgment on a fine for negligence case, and the public prosecutor’s opinion shall be made after a year, and the party’s public prosecutor may file an immediate appeal against this judgment, while Article 279 of the Act provides that the court may hear the party’s statement and bring an objection against the judgment on a fine for negligence pursuant to such summary procedure, instead of allowing the court to bring an appeal without hearing the party’s statement, and if a legitimate objection is raised, the court shall hear the party’s statement and re-examine the judgment.

In addition, since a fine for negligence requires legal stability as long as the period for filing an objection is imposed, it is reasonable to see that the judgment becomes final and conclusive if the period for filing an objection is excessive. Therefore, it is natural to interpret Article 19(3) of the same Act that the court authority cannot revoke or change the judgment ex officio after the lapse of the objection.

3. The objection set forth above shall not immediately be against the higher court, such as the appeal, but the purport of objection against the judgment shall not be different, so if the party cannot observe the period of objection due to a cause not attributable to him/her by applying Article 22 of the same Act mutatis mutandis to the period of objection, it shall be reasonable to deem that he/she may supplement the neglected act within one week after the cause not attributable to him/her.

4. Therefore, the order of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the completion of procedural acts, and the reappeal of this issue is with merit, and the case is remanded to the court below for a trial as to the existence or absence of a cause attributable to the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The Supreme Court Decision 201Na1449 delivered on June 1, 201