In a case where the court of appeal has to dismiss an immediate appeal under the Civil Execution Act but sent the case without dismissing it, the measures to be taken by the court of appeal (=Dismissal) and whether the said legal principles are equally applied to the reappeal under the Civil Execution Act (affirmative)

Articles 15(3), (5), and (8), 227(4), and 251(1) of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Order 2006Ma327 Decided August 7, 2006

The debtor

Subu District Court Order 2014Ra91 dated August 19, 2014

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

We examine the legitimacy of the reappeal of this case.

In a case where an immediate appeal against a judgment by the court of execution on the execution procedure is filed, the appellant shall submit a written reason for the appeal to the court of original judgment within 10 days from the date on which he states the grounds for appeal or submits a written reason for appeal (Article 15(3) of the Civil Execution Act), and in a case where he violates this, the court of original judgment shall dismiss the immediate appeal by its ruling (Article 15(5) of the Civil Execution Act). Meanwhile, in a case where an immediate appeal is dismissed by the court of original judgment for the same reason (Article 15(8) of the Civil Execution Act). Since such immediate appeal is also stipulated under the Civil Execution Act, if the appellant fails to submit a written reason for appeal to the court of original judgment within 10 days from the date on which he/she submits a written reason for appeal without stating the grounds for appeal and without dismissing the immediate appeal, the court of appeal shall dismiss it immediately. Since an immediate appeal against a seizure order by members (see Articles 251(1) and 227(4) of the Civil Execution Act) of the Civil Execution Act).

According to the records, the re-appellant filed a reappeal on July 15, 2014 against the lower court’s ruling to dismiss an immediate appeal against an order of seizure of a member’s share based on an investment certificate on the investment certificate on July 24, 2014. However, the re-appellant received a ruling to dismiss the reappeal from the lower court on August 19, 2014 on the ground that the re-appeal did not submit a written reappeal within 10 days from that time without stating the grounds for reappeal, and again filed a reappeal on September 1, 2014, and the lower court sent the instant case to the Supreme Court without stating the reappeal’s reappeal’s written reappeal within 10 days from that time without submitting a written reappeal’s written reappeal’s written reappeal’s written reappeal’s written reappeal’s written reappeal’s written reappeal’s written reappeal’s written notification. The re-appellant was later filed on October 16, 2014.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court should immediately dismiss the reappeal against the ruling of rejection of reappeal pursuant to Article 15(5) of the Civil Execution Act, as it was sent to the Supreme Court, and thus, the reappeal of this case should be dismissed as unlawful.

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

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)