[1] The case dismissing a duplicate reappeal

[2] Whether an appeal against a ruling of dismissal of quasi-examination that is subject to a ruling of permission for successful bid price, and a reappeal against the ruling of dismissal of such appeal shall also be filed within the period of an immediate appeal (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that in a case where an applicant filed a reappeal against the first order of the court below, but dismissed it, and thereafter filed a reappeal against the second order of the court below as to the second order of the court below, and then filed a reappeal against the second order of the court below, the reappeal with the same content as that of the reappeal already filed against the first order of the court below is deemed unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate reappeal

[2] Article 455 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to quasi-deliberation procedures under Article 461 of the same Act, provides that the provisions concerning litigation procedures in each instance shall apply mutatis mutandis to the retrial procedures, and the reappeal against the decision of permission for a successful bid that may only be dissatisfied with an immediate appeal, shall also constitute an immediate appeal. As such, not only an appeal against the decision dismissing an application for quasi-deliberation that is subject to the decision of permission for a successful bid, but also a reappeal against the decision dismissing the appeal shall be filed within the period of immediate appeal, such as the method of

[1] Articles 259 and 443 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 444, 455, and 461 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Order 2002Ma362 dated August 16, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2276)

Re-appellant

Cheongju District Court Order 2003Ra93 dated February 2, 2004, Cheongju District Court Order 2003Ra93 dated February 25, 2004

The reappeal against the order of the court below dated February 2, 2004 is dismissed on March 6, 2004. The reappeal against the order of the court below dated February 25, 2004 is dismissed. The reappeal against the order of the court below dated February 25, 2004 is dismissed.

1. Case progress

The following facts are clear on the records.

A. The decision of voluntary auction was rendered on February 9, 199 with respect to the real estate in this case owned by the re-appellant (the re-Appellant; hereinafter referred to as the "applicant"). The decision of voluntary auction was rendered on June 8, 1999 with the Cheongju District Court 9521, and the decision of permission of successful bid was finalized to the extent of the period of immediate appeal.

B. The applicant filed a quasi-examination on March 22, 2003, but the first instance court dismissed the applicant’s application for quasi-examination on August 29, 2003, and the applicant filed a complaint against this. However, on February 2, 2004, the lower court notified the applicant of the first lower court’s order on February 7, 2004, and submitted the reappeal against the first instance court’s order on February 18, 2004, to the lower court on February 18, 2004, after the applicant was notified of the first lower court’s order, and the lower court determined that the applicant’s reappeal was unlawful on February 25, 2004 as it was filed after the filing of an immediate appeal.

C. The applicant was notified of the second order on March 2, 2004 and submitted a reappeal to the court below that the applicant cancelled the first and second order on March 6, 2004.

2. Whether the reappeal of March 6, 2004 against the first order of the court below was lawful

Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a party shall not institute a lawsuit again with regard to a case pending before a court. This provision applies mutatis mutandis to a reappeal pursuant to Articles 408, 425 and 443 of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant filed a reappeal against the first order of the court below on February 18, 2004 and received the second order that rejected it after filing a reappeal against the second order of the court below on March 6, 2004, and filed a reappeal against the second order of the court below on March 6, 2004, and re-appeal against the second order of the court below on February 18, 2004. Thus, this provision is unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate reappeal.

3. Appropriateness of the reappeal against the second order of the court below

Article 455 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to quasi-deliberation procedures under Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act, provides that the provisions concerning litigation procedures in each instance shall apply mutatis mutandis to the retrial procedures, and the reappeal against the decision on permission for a successful tender that may only be dissatisfied with an immediate appeal, also constitutes an immediate appeal (see Supreme Court Order 2002Ma362, Aug. 16, 2002). Thus, not only an appeal against the decision dismissing a quasi-adjudication application subject to the decision on permission for a successful tender of this case, but also a reappeal against the decision dismissing the appeal shall be filed within the same period as the method of filing an immediate appeal against the decision on permission for a successful tender of this case (see Supreme Court Order 68Ma1467, Dec. 28, 1968).

The second order of the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of reappeal (the court below's dismissal of reappeals by order is disadvantageous to the applicant since the court below's dismissal of reappeals should have been ordered by order, and it cannot be viewed that there is no error of law affecting the decision of the court below.)

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the reappeal against the first order of March 6, 2004 is dismissed. The reappeal against the second order of the court below is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)