Handling of complaints filed against summary judgment on fines for negligence;

In rendering a judgment on a fine for negligence pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the judgment on a fine for negligence by the court below, which is imposed on an offender, without taking a procedure of examination, such as taking a procedure of summons of the offender, and hearing the opinion of the prosecutor, is bound to be considered as a summary procedure. Thus, even if the offender is dissatisfied with the method of submitting a written appeal, the court below should treat the case as an immediate appeal, by treating it as an objection against the summary judgment, and hear the party’s statement in accordance with the summary procedure, not by treating it as an immediate appeal.

Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

Seopo Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Gangwon-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Changwon District Court Order 94Ma96 dated September 8, 1994

The case shall be transferred to the Changwon District Court for the first time.

According to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, a judgment of a fine for negligence shall be rendered by a decision with the reason attached, but the court shall hear the statement of the party and seek the opinion of the public prosecutor before the judgment, and the parties and the public prosecutor may file an immediate appeal against the judgment of a fine for negligence (Article 248 (1) through (3)). If it is deemed reasonable, the court may proceed with the judgment of a fine for negligence without hearing the party's statement in summary, and the parties and the public prosecutor may file an objection within one week from the date of receiving the notification of the above summary judgment. In this case, the above summary judgment shall lose its effect by filing an objection, and the court shall hear the party's statement and render a new judgment (Article 250). Since the method of raising an objection against the judgment of a fine for negligence in summary form is not separately determined, the above summary judgment shall not be considered as an objection and shall not be treated as an immediate appeal.

However, according to the records, the offender is dissatisfied with the disposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 4,00,00 on the ground that he did not report his succession within one month while he succeeded to the oil station operated by a petroleum retailer, other than the appeal, and the offender raised an objection against the disposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 4,00,00. The court below, pursuant to Article 28 of the Petroleum Business Act, did not follow the procedures of examination to hear the statement of the party to the offender and summon the offender, and did not hear the prosecutor's opinion in order to hear the statement of the party to the lawsuit in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is based on the summary procedure without hearing the party's statement. Therefore, even though the offender is dissatisfied with the method of filing an appeal, the court below should treat the case as an immediate appeal, and treat the case as invalid, and hear the party's statement in accordance with the procedure of the summary trial.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by transferring the instant case to the lower court.

Judges Jeong Jong-ju (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-tae