The basic date of receipt of a petition of appeal received by the Seoul High Court office and forwarded to the Seoul High Court for the first instance following the date of receipt of the petition of appeal

If the original copy of the judgment of the Seoul Civil District Court, the first instance court, was served on November 29, 1983, and the petition of appeal was received at the Seoul High Court office on December 13, 1983, and was sent to the Seoul Civil Affairs District Court and received again, then the petition of appeal was sent to the Seoul Civil Affairs District Court on Duty at the time of the Seoul High Court on Duty, the petition of appeal shall be deemed to have been submitted to the Seoul Civil Affairs District Court, which is the legal entity of the first instance, under Article 367(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, on the day of the receipt of the petition of appeal at the Seoul High Court on Duty.

Article 367(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 82Ma762 Dated November 27, 1982

Seocho Fisheries Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na287 delivered on June 22, 1984

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the date when the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was served on the plaintiff on November 29, 1983, and that the plaintiff's petition of appeal of this case was received at the Seoul High Court on December 13, 1983 and was received at the 14th instance court on that month, and that the petition of appeal of this case was served at the 14th instance court on that month, and that the petition of appeal is to be submitted to the first instance court within two weeks from the date when the petition of appeal was served on the court of first instance. Accordingly, the court below

2. However, according to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff's petition of appeal was received directly in the office of Seoul High Court on December 13, 1983, and it is evident that the office of Seoul High Court on duty was in charge of the direct reception of documents submitted to the Seoul High Court on duty at that time (see, e.g., mediation of workers on duty at the office of Seoul High Court Administration prior to May 25, 1982). Thus, it cannot be concluded that the petition of appeal of this case was submitted to the Seoul High Court on the sole basis of the fact that the office of Seoul High Court was directly in charge of the direct reception of documents (see, e.g., mediation of workers on duty at the office of the Seoul High Court on duty). Rather, the above petition of appeal was submitted to the Seoul High Court on the first instance court pursuant to

In the above petition of appeal, although the "Seoul High Court return" includes the "Seoul High Court return", it is nothing more than the declaration of the competent court of appeal, and it is difficult to conclude that the above petition of appeal is submitted to the Seoul High Court immediately without the invasion of the first instance court.

3. Ultimately, the petition of appeal of this case should be deemed to have been received by the Seoul Appellate Court at the time of being directly confined to the party office, and thus, even though it is necessary to consider whether the period of appeal is observed on the basis of this day, the judgment below which interpreted otherwise is erroneous by failing to sufficiently examine the facts pertaining to the receipt of the petition of appeal or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the observance of the period of appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)