The case holding that the presiding judge's correction order in the stamp correction order was suspended due to the suspension of litigation procedures due to the commencement of trial procedures with respect to the other party to the lawsuit, and the presiding judge's correction order in the status of suspension of litigation procedures has no effect of issuing the correction extension order in the status of suspension of litigation procedures, and thus,

The case holding that the presiding judge's correction order in the stamp correction order was suspended due to the suspension of litigation procedures due to the commencement of litigation procedures with respect to the other party to the lawsuit, and the presiding judge's correction order in the status of suspension of litigation procedures also has no effect of issuing the correction extension order in the status of suspension of litigation procedures, and thus,

Article 59(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 247 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Other Party

Daegu High Court Order 2007Na7004, 7011 dated July 6, 2009

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant was posted to the plaintiff in Daegu High Court case 2007Na7004 (principal lawsuit), 2007Na7011 (Counterclaim), which was submitted on March 18, 2009, for lack of KRW 106,572,800, and the presiding judge of the court below ordered the Re-Appellant on June 8, 2009 that "the court below ordered the Re-Appellant to correct the amount of KRW 106,572,80 for the shortage of the petition for appeal within 5 days from the date of service of the order" and the order was served on June 9, 2009 on the Re-Appellant on the ground that the order was served on the other party (the defendant in the above case)'s application for extension of the period for final appeal, and on June 10, 2009, the court below ordered the other party to revise the order within 209, Daegu District Court Order No. 2009, Jun. 29, 2009.

However, in light of the purport and contents of Article 59(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and Article 247 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provide that “when a decision has been made to commence the rehabilitation procedure, the procedure relating to the debtor’s property shall be interrupted.” In light of the purport and contents of Article 59(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and Article 247 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provide that “the effect of suspending the proceedings is to suspend the proceedings, on June 11, 2009, the procedure of this case, which is the other party’s property, has been suspended, and the period for correction under the order to correct stamp as of June 8, 2009 by the presiding judge of the court below, was suspended. In addition, the order to extend the period as of June 16, 2009 by the presiding judge of the court

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the petition of appeal of this case on the ground that the re-appellant did not correct the stamp within the period of stamp correction. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interruption of litigation procedures, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of reappeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)