meaning of a case where a public summons procedure is not permitted under the law which is entitled to appeal against a nullification judgment;

Although a promissory note is not lost, even if the judgment of nullification was obtained by pretending it to be lost, it is nothing more than erroneous fact-finding in the individual procedure of the public summons, but it does not constitute an abstract and general case where there is no legal basis for allowing the public summons. Therefore, it does not constitute a ground for objection to the judgment of nullification.

Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da989 delivered on July 24, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 9051 delivered on July 24, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18 ② citizen97 delivered on July 18, 197, and Article 461(2)1032 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Domjin Co.

Seoul Central District Court (68A7685) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 68Da7685)

Supreme Court Decision 70Da989 Delivered on July 24, 1970

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of nullification rendered by the Seoul Civil District Court on July 16, 1968 with respect to promissory notes stated in the attached list in the attached list shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The fact that the Seoul Civil District Court rendered a nullification judgment on July 16, 1968 with respect to two copies of promissory notes stated in the attached list (68Ka4009) upon the Defendant’s request that the parties concerned are not in dispute.

The Plaintiff, as a bearer of two promissory notes stated in the separate sheet, was prepared to file a lawsuit for the claim for the payment of the amount. Although the Defendant did not lose the said promissory notes, the Defendant made a false public notice on March 21, 1968 and made a nullification judgment on July 16, 1968. However, the Defendant was subject to an unjust nullification judgment on the ground that the Defendant was subject to a revocation judgment on the above nullification judgment pursuant to Article 461 and Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Act since it was alleged that the revocation of the said nullification judgment was sought pursuant to Article 461 and Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the amount of the amount of the amount of the promissorysory notes was not an abstract and generally without any legal basis to permit the public summons. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the amount of damages in a specific and individual case should be interpreted to constitute the same without any specific and individual grounds for rejection. In this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it did not constitute a nullification judgment on the sole basis for the Plaintiff’s own own assertion that it was lost.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed because it is improper to do so, and since the judgment of a different court is unfair, it is so revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of total costs of lawsuit.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Cho Young-dong (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-dong