[1] Where a party who has taken an oath makes a false statement, whether the other party has the right to apply for a judgment of an administrative fine (negative)

[2] Whether Article 370(1) of the Civil Procedure Act does not stipulate the other party’s right to request a trial on a fine for negligence violates the Constitution (negative)

[1] Article 370(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 370(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 27(1) of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Order 98Ma413 dated April 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 143) / [2] Constitutional Court en banc Order 2007HunBa23 Decided September 25, 2008 (HunGong144, 1279)

Re-appellant

Changwon District Court Order 2006BB25 dated March 13, 2007

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 370(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “When a party who has taken an oath makes a false statement, the court shall, by its ruling, punish a fine for negligence not exceeding five million won.” The issue of whether a party is subject to a fine for negligence pursuant to the above Article 370(1) is at the discretion of the court. Thus, the other party has no right to apply for a judgment of a fine for negligence in excess of urging the court to make an ex officio action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 88Ma90, Nov. 14, 198; Supreme Court Order 98Ma413, Apr. 13, 1998).

In the same purport, the decision of the court of first instance that rejected the application of this case is justifiable, and there is no violation of the Constitution, law, order or rule that affected the judgment, as otherwise alleged.

In addition, Article 370(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the right to request a trial of fines for negligence by the other party shall not be deemed to violate the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2007HunBa23, Sept. 25, 2008).

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)