Whether the petition of appeal may be dismissed on the ground that the rejection of the application for salvage was not made regardless of whether the rejection of the new application has become final and conclusive in case where the rejection of the application for salvage was again made in the lawsuit even though the rejection of the application for salvage was final and conclusive without attaching stamps to the petition of appeal (affirmative)

Articles 128 and 402 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 92Ma1134 decided Jan. 25, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1055)

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 2007Na26225 dated March 21, 2008

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In a case where the appellant has filed an application for the salvage in the lawsuit without attaching a prescribed revenue stamp when filing the petition of appeal, the petition of appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground that the stamp of the petition of appeal is not attached before the decision on the application for the salvage in the lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, or on the ground that the order for dismissal of the application for the salvage in the lawsuit was not revised after the decision on the dismissal thereof became final and conclusive, and that the petition of appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not revised. Even if the first application for the salvage in the lawsuit was filed after the decision on the dismissal of the application for the salvage in the lawsuit became final and conclusive, unless it is known that the application for the salvage in the lawsuit was accepted in the grounds, the petition of appeal may be dismissed regardless of whether the decision on the dismissal of the next application for the salvage has become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Order 92Ma

According to the records, the Re-Appellant was sentenced to a judgment of July 26, 2007 against the plaintiff on July 2007 as Seoul Central District Court 2007dan175, and did not attach stamps to the petition of appeal. The presiding judge of the court of first instance ordered the Re-Appellant to pay stamp fees within seven days after delivery of the order. On August 6, 2007, the order served on the Re-Appellant on August 9, 2007; the Re-Appellant filed an application for legal aid on August 16, 2007, but the order was rejected on August 21, 2007, and the order was rejected on September 5, 2007 by the Seoul Central District Court 207, but the order was rejected on October 26, 2007, which was not known to the Director of the Seoul Central District Court 208Da31497 decided Oct. 26, 2007.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below is justified in rejecting the petition of appeal on the ground that the re-appellant did not attach a prescribed stamp while submitting the petition of appeal and filed an application for rescue in the lawsuit, and the re-appellant did not correct it after the decision dismissing the application for rescue in the lawsuit became final and conclusive, and the court below did not dismiss the petition of appeal on the ground that it did not correct it. There were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)