A case where it is not deemed necessary to avoid significant damage or delay of lawsuit under Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The investigation records and evidence related to the illegal acts shall not constitute a serious loss or delay of litigation as referred to in Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act solely on the ground that the court in which the lawsuit has been filed has an excessive cost.

Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act

Notice of February 27, 1969 66Ma1224 decided Feb. 27, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 7653, Decision 32(8)783 of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 79Ma208 decided Aug. 7, 1979

New Hotel Co., Ltd. and one other

Nowon-gu et al.

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (79Gahap132)

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

First, the summary of the reason for appeal by the attorney of the Bank of Korea, which is the appellant of this case, is without the jurisdiction of Gwangju District Court, and the court below rejected the appellant's application for transfer on the ground that the case belongs to the jurisdiction of the Gwangju District Court. Thus, according to the records of this case, the plaintiffs' domicile in this case (Seoul District Court 79Gahap132 case) is Gwangju City and Seoyang-si, and it is clear that the reason for the claim is for the defendants' tort, the plaintiff's claim is clearly filed with the court having jurisdiction over the place of obligation performance (Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the place of repayment should be the creditor's present address (Article 467 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act), the plaintiff (the plaintiff) who has jurisdiction over the domicile of the creditor (the plaintiff) who is the place of obligation of this case shall also belong to the Gwangju District Court, which has jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of the Gwangju District Court. Thus, the above claimant's assertion on the premise that the jurisdiction of this case did not exist in the Gwangju District Court.

Next, the summary of the grounds for appeal by the appellant of New Hotel Co., Ltd., Seoul, the appellant of this case, is not only in Seoul, but also in consideration of the appellant's burden and effort to avoid significant damage or delay, so it is reasonable for the court below to dismiss the appellant's request for transfer of this case to Seoul Civil District Court. However, according to the records, it is reasonable for the Seoul Civil Court to recognize the fact that the illegal act of this case is Seoul and the investigation records and witness evidence related to the illegal act of this case are located in Seoul, but it is not recognized that there is a reason for the considerable delay in litigation (see Supreme Court Order 66Ma124, Jul. 27, 1967). In addition, Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that if the appellant's attorney bears a significant burden on the defendant's side to transfer the case to Seoul Civil Court, it is not necessary to transfer the case to the Seoul Civil Court to the Seoul Civil District Court (see Supreme Court Order 63Da1665, Jul. 27, 1967).

Therefore, the order of the court below that dismissed the appellant's request for transfer is just and without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Lee-tae (Presiding Judge)