[1] The procedure of a trial on an administrative fine against a witness in absence, and the method of objection thereto

[2] The method of dealing with the decision of an administrative fine, which was made without giving the witness an opportunity to make a statement, where the witness submitted a "Immediate Appeal" and submitted it to the court of competent jurisdiction

[1] Article 210(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the provisions pertaining to inspections in Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act shall not apply to trials on fines for negligence under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the provisions pertaining to inspections in Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act shall apply to trials on fines for negligence pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, even in rendering decisions on fines for negligence to a witness who fails to appear without justifiable cause, it shall be interpreted that there is a method of giving the witness an opportunity to state his opinion on fines for negligence trials and giving him an opportunity to state his opinion, and a summary judgment without giving him an opportunity to state his opinion, and the parties may immediately file an immediate appeal against a formal trial pursuant to Article 282(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, but it shall be interpreted that a summary judgment received formal trial by raising an objection under Article 250(2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation

[2] The decision of the fine for negligence imposed without giving the witness an opportunity to make a statement is a summary judgment under Article 250 (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, which is not given the witness an opportunity to make a statement. Thus, "the petition for immediate appeal submitted by the witness against him/her" shall be treated as an objection under Article 250 (2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, notwithstanding its title, and therefore the competent court shall be the

[1] Articles 210(2) and 282 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act / [2] Articles 210(2) and 282 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 2000Na55163 dated March 6, 2001

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

Article 248(2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act provides that the court shall hear the statements of the parties and the prosecutor before rendering a judgment on a fine for negligence. However, Article 250 of the same Act provides that the court may proceed with a judgment on a fine for negligence without hearing the party’s statement when deemed reasonable (Article 250). The parties and the public prosecutor may file an objection within one week from the date of receiving the notice of the judgment under paragraph (1) (Article 2). (Article 248(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a judgment on a lawsuit under paragraph (1) shall lose its effect (Article 2(3). (Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court shall hear the party’s statement and re-judicial proceedings (Article 4). Meanwhile, Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where a witness fails to appear without justifiable grounds, the court shall by its ruling be subject to an administrative fine not exceeding 500,000 won (Article 210(2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

Therefore, the provisions of Articles 248 and 250 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, which are not the part relating to the inspection, shall apply to the trial of the fine for negligence under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, even in the case of the decision to impose the fine for negligence on a witness who fails to appear without any justifiable reason, it is interpreted that there exists a method of making a formal trial by providing the witness an opportunity to make a statement on the trial of the fine for negligence and providing the witness with an opportunity to make a statement, and the party concerned may immediately file an immediate appeal against the formal trial pursuant to Article 282(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, but it is interpreted that the summary trial by raising an objection pursuant to Article 250(2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act and by re-

According to the records, in Seoul District Court 200Na55163 lease deposit case, the re-appellant who was requested as a witness by the defendant in this case was not present on the fourth day of February 8, 2001 when he was served a writ of summons to attend on the fourth day of February 2, 2001, which was opened at 15:00 of the same year, and the court below made a decision against the re-appellant without giving the opportunity to make a statement on the 6th day of the same month, and the re-appellant was dissatisfied with the above decision by submitting "the petition of appeal" under Article 250 (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act which was submitted by the court below on the 6th day of the same month without giving the opportunity to make a statement to the re-appellant, and therefore the "the petition of this case submitted by the re-appellant" in this case should be treated as a summary judgment under Article 250 (2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act.

Therefore, the competent court of this case shall be deemed to be the collegiate panel of the Seoul District Court, which is the legal ground for summary judgment, and it shall be transferred to the competent court under Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)