Main Issues
Whether the cancellation of the order may be made where the deficient stamps have been corrected after the order to dismiss the complaint was served.
Summary of Decision
After the order to dismiss the complaint has been served, the stamp which has become insufficient shall be added, and even if the objection has been filed, the rejection order shall not be revoked.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 231 and 416 of the Civil Procedure Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Order 68Ma49 dated July 29, 1968 (No. 16-2, 317) Supreme Court Order 69Ma684 dated September 30, 1969 (No. 17-3, 167)
Re-appellant
Re-appellant
Other Party
The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
The order of the court below
Seoul High Court Order 95Nu910 dated November 13, 1995
Text
The reappeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
The gist of the grounds of reappeal is that the re-appellant cannot prepare for the insufficient stamp amount due to the confinement in the protective custody center, and that the time limit for payment is extended, and the presiding judge's cancellation of the order of rejection of the complaint of this case is sought by seeking a postponement of the time limit for the pre-trial expenses. However, according to the record, the presiding judge of the court of the original instance finds the lack of awareness in the complaint as a result of the examination of the complaint, and issued the order to the re-appellant who raised the suit, and the re-appellant did not add the stamp within the prescribed time limit, so it can be acknowledged that the order to dismiss the complaint was issued pursuant to Article 231, Article 231, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that the order was served on the re-appellant. Thus, even after the rejection order was served on the re-appellant, the court of the original instance cannot revoke the order with the consideration of re-appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 69Ma68484, etc.).
Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)