[1] The method of disputing the decision of an appellate court (=re-appeal)

[2] The case holding that an appeal filed by a court which dismissed an objection against a disposition by a junior administrative officer, etc. of the collegiate panel of the district court, which is the appellate court, shall be revoked on the ground that the above decision was delivered to the appellate court, which is not the Supreme Court, after the record was sent to the appellate court, and the above decision was dismissed as a case of appeal

[3] The scope of recorded tapes, magnetic disks for computer use, etc. which can be requested by the parties or a third party who clearly expresses the interests of the parties or parties stipulated in Articles 34(2) and 37(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to reproduce to the court officials of Grade IV, etc.

[1] Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "it shall be re-appealed only when it is required for the violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders or rules that affected the decision of an appellate court, a high court, or an appellate court." Thus, the decision of an appellate court should be contested by a re-appeal to the Supreme Court.

[2] The case holding that an appeal filed by a court which dismissed an objection against a disposition by a junior administrative officer, etc. of the collegiate panel of the district court, which is the appellate court, shall be revoked on the ground that the above decision was delivered to the appellate court, which is not the Supreme Court, after the record was sent to the appellate court, which is not the Supreme Court, and the appellate court is dismissed after

[3] The recorded tapes or magnetic discs for computer use, etc. which can be requested by the parties or a third party who has explained the interests of the parties under Articles 34(2) and 37(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by reproducing to the court officials of Grade IV, etc., shall be limited to the recorded tapes or magnetic discs for computer use, etc. which are part of the protocol by ordering the court to record or video record all or part of the pleadings, or by ordering the parties to record or video record the whole or part of the pleadings if deemed necessary under Articles 159(1) and 159(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the presiding judge or the participating officer, etc. shall not fall under the recorded tapes or magnetic discs for computer use, etc. which are all or part of the pleadings and which are not considered as part of the protocol, if deemed necessary to guarantee the convenience of preparation of

[1] Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 159(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 34(2) and 37(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 2004B1 Dated February 23, 2004

The order of the court below is revoked. The reappeal is dismissed.

1. Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "A reappeal may be made only when it is required on the ground of violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders or rules affecting the decision of an appellate court, a high court, or an appellate court." Thus, in regard to the decision of an appellate court, it is necessary to file a reappeal with the Supreme Court.

According to the records, it is clear that the re-appellant filed an appeal against the ruling of the above court which dismissed the appeal on the ground that the objection filed by a junior administrative officer, the Seoul Family Court Panel Division of the appellate court, was groundless. Thus, the above court should regard it as reappeal and send the records to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the court below sent it to the Seoul High Court, and the court below dismissed the appeal. Thus, the court below's decision to revoke the order of the court below is just a court without authority, and the reappeal of this case is treated as a reappeal against the ruling made by the collegiate panel of the above district court.

2. According to the provisions of Article 159 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 34 and 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and each of the provisions of Articles 34(2) and 37(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, recording tapes or magnetic disks for computer use, etc., in which the parties or a third party who explained their interests may request to reproduce to the persons, etc. and send them, shall be limited to recorded tapes or magnetic disks for computer use, etc., all or part of pleadings, in cases where the court deems it necessary or the parties request to do so pursuant to the provisions of Article 159(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and where the presiding judge or the participating officer deems it necessary to ensure the convenience of preparation of the protocol and the accuracy of the contents of the protocol, they do not constitute recorded tapes or magnetic discs for computer use, etc., in which the whole or part of pleadings are recorded or recorded and which are not considered as part of the protocol.

The above collegiate panel of the family court did not issue an order to record or video recording as prescribed in Article 159 of the Civil Procedure Act upon acceptance of the Re-Appellant's motion to record the proceedings in the same court case in 2002Re-Appellant589, and it is judged that the same court's order to record the proceedings in the above case in video camera does not constitute an object of requesting the re-appellant to reproduce under each provision of Articles 34(2) and 37(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the computer disc temporarily stored the recorded contents for the accurate preparation of the witness examination protocol, etc. is merely used in the appropriate time after preparing the witness examination protocol and is not used as a part of the protocol. In light of the records, the above judgment of the above Family court's collegiate panel is just and it is not justified as otherwise alleged, and there is no illegality in violation of due process.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is revoked and the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)