(a) Whether an immediate appeal against an order by the executing court which rejected the written appeal against a seizure and assignment order of claim is, by nature, the first appeal;

(b) the binding force of a decision of transfer contrary to the exclusive jurisdiction.

(c) Binding force of the decision of transfer contrary to the jurisdiction of the court;

A. The order of rejection of a complaint by the court of execution, which was a primary disposition, is not a secondary disposition that the court of original judgment determines on behalf of the court of appeal as to the propriety of the order of seizure and assignment of the claim, but a secondary disposition that determines on behalf of the court of appeal as to whether the above order of seizure and assignment of the claim is proper or not, regardless of the propriety of the above order of seizure and assignment of the claim, whether the necessary entry is entered in the immediate appeal petition submitted by the debtor, whether the pertinent stamp is affixed or not, or whether the appeal has been filed within the prescribed time limit. The immediate appeal is an initial appeal by nature.

B. The binding force of the transfer decision is that an immediate appeal is in place against the transfer decision, and that the public interest request to avoid delay of the lawsuit due to the repetition of the transfer is not an exception even if it is transferred in violation of the exclusive jurisdiction. In light of the fact that a party's immediate appeal against the transfer decision has not been made and that it is not an exception, in principle, transferred in violation of the provisions of the exclusive jurisdiction.

C. If the binding force of the decision of transfer extends to the court of the higher court to which the transfer was made in violation of the court jurisdiction, it would be unfair to deprive the parties of the interests of the other party, and if the transferred court is the legal court, there are unreasonable grounds to deprive the parties of the opportunity to assert and prove the facts of the parties, except for the matters to be examined ex officio, in the case of the Supreme Court, the binding force of the decision of transfer in violation of the court jurisdiction does not extend to the court of the higher court to which the transfer was made. However, if the binding force does not extend to the court of lower court to which the transfer was made, the case is likely to cause unreasonable results that are repeatedly transferred between the lower court and the court of higher court, and the decision of transfer of the higher court in the civil procedure proceedings is binding on the lower court, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the binding force of the decision of transfer in violation of the court jurisdiction shall be deemed to affect the court of lower court to which the transfer was made.

(a) Articles 413 and 368-2(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

Supreme Court en banc Order 94Ma1961 dated January 20, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 897)

United Kingdom Co., Ltd.

Gwangju District Court Order 94Ra35,36 dated May 16, 1994

The case shall be transferred to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

1. According to the records, when the re-appellant, who is the debtor of the claim attachment and assignment order of this case, files an appeal against the above claim attachment and assignment order, the court of execution which is the court of appeal shall regard the nature of the above appeal as an immediate appeal, and dismissed the petition of appeal (it was erroneous in the decision of the court of appeal that should be ordered to be ordered to be ordered) by its ruling on the ground that the appeal was received with the lapse of one week from the date of notification as the period of the immediate appeal, and as the re-appellant raised an immediate appeal against the rejection of the above petition, it is obvious that the court of appeal, the Gwangju District Court, which is the appellate court, transferred the case

2. In compulsory execution procedures, Article 413 of the Civil Procedure Act is applied mutatis mutandis to the provisions of Article 413 of the same Act, and Article 368-2 of the same Act concerning an appellate court in the litigation proceedings is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to the same provision, and accordingly, in case where an obligor of an attachment and assignment order of claims files an immediate appeal against the attachment and assignment order of claims, the court of execution which is the original court, shall dismiss the above written appeal by the order when the appellant fails to correct the defects even though the order to correct defects was issued, and when it is evident that the period of appeal has expired (Article 368-2(1) and (2)), in case where the order to dismiss the appeal is subject to the method of an immediate appeal (Article 368-2(3)).

In this case, the order of rejection of a complaint by the court of original judgment, which is a executing court, is not a secondary disposition which the court of original judgment determines on behalf of the court of appeal as to the propriety of the order of rejection of a complaint for appeal, but a secondary disposition which decides on behalf of the court of appeal as to the propriety of the order of seizure and assignment of claim, and regardless of the propriety of the above order of seizure and assignment of claim, it is a primary disposition which determines as to whether the necessary entry is stated in the immediate appeal petition submitted by the debtor, whether the prescribed recognition is affixed or not, or whether the appeal has been filed within the period of the immediate appeal. The above immediate appeal, which is a method of objection to such order, is an initial appeal in its nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 95Da1961, Jan. 20, 195; 94Ma1961, supra). Thus, the decision of the court of appeal that transferred the above order to the party member of the case, considering it as a reappeal, cannot be deemed to be erroneous

3. However, according to the provisions of Article 34(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the transfer decision is to prohibit the transfer of the case to another court by binding the transferred court.

The binding force of the transfer decision is that an immediate appeal is provided by the method of appeal against the transfer decision, and that the public interest request to avoid the delay of a lawsuit due to the repetition of the transfer is not an exception even if the transfer is made in violation of the exclusive jurisdiction, so long as the parties have not filed an immediate appeal against the transfer decision and it is confirmed that the transfer decision has not been made, in principle, it shall extend to the transfer in violation of the provisions of the exclusive jurisdiction.

However, even in cases of transfer in violation of the court jurisdiction, if the binding force of the transfer decision extends to the court of the higher court to which the transfer was made, it would be unfair to deprive the parties of the interests of the higher court. In addition, in the case of the Supreme Court where the transferred court is a legal court, it shall be deemed that the binding force of the transfer decision in violation of the court jurisdiction does not extend to the court of the higher court to which the transfer was made. Meanwhile, if the binding force of the transfer decision in violation of the court jurisdiction does not extend to the court of lower court to which the transfer was made, it would result in the unreasonable result repeatedly transferred between the lower court and the court of higher court, and as such, the court of lower court's decision of the higher court to which the transfer decision in violation of the court jurisdiction was binding on the lower court, barring any special circumstances, since it is contrary to the above legal principles, the binding force of the transfer decision in violation of the court jurisdiction shall be deemed to affect the court of lower court to which the transfer decision in violation of the court jurisdiction was transferred.

4. Therefore, this case shall be transferred to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court, which is the appellate court, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)