[1] The procedure of trial and hearing as to whether to permit the submission of documents

[2] The case holding that the order of submission of a document on the following day of the application for submission of a document is unlawful without any particular examination as to the requirements of the order of submission of the document without giving the other party an opportunity to state his opinion

[1] When rendering a judgment as to whether to permit the submission of a document, the court shall review the following: (a) the existence and possession of the document in question; (b) whether the document in question is necessary with documentary evidence; and (c) whether the other party to the application for the submission of a document bears the obligation to submit the document pursuant to Article 344 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (d) determine whether to permit the submission of the document, unless the application is accepted by itself, in light of the progress of the lawsuit until that time and the content of the application for the submission of the document.

[2] The case holding that the order to submit a document was unlawful on the day immediately following the application for the submission of a document without any particular hearing as to the requirements of the order to submit a document without taking necessary measures to give the other party an opportunity to state his/her opinion, such as serving the document upon the other party

[1] Articles 344 and 347(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 110(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure / [2] Articles 344 and 347(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 110(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Appellant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Lee & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jong-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other Party

Seoul High Court Order 2008Nu32180 dated December 23, 2008

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 347(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that an order to submit a document shall be issued to the other party to an application for submission of a document, if the document held by the other party to the application for submission of a document is deemed as a documentary evidence, and the other party to the application for submission of the document shall be ordered to submit the document pursuant to Article 344 of the Civil Procedure Act. If the other party to the application for submission of the document does not comply with this order, the court may recognize the other party's assertion as true pursuant to Article 349 of the Civil Procedure Act or impose a fine for negligence pursuant to Article 351 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 110(2) of the Rules of the Civil Procedure provides that the other party to the application for submission of the document may submit the document stating his opinion as to the application for submission of the document. In rendering a judgment as to whether to grant permission for submission of the document, the other party shall be given an opportunity to state his opinion, depending on the existence and possession of the document, whether the document is necessary, and whether the other party to submit the document shall be determined.

However, according to the records, the court below did not take measures necessary to give the other party an opportunity to state his opinion on the application for the submission of documents, such as delivering it to the re-appellant after the application for the submission of documents in this case. The court below ordered the submission of documents in this case on the following day of the application for the submission of documents without any particular hearing as to the requirements for the submission of documents. Such decision of the court below is unlawful in light

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, 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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)