The nature of the request for transfer due to lack of jurisdiction and the special appeal against the decision to dismiss it;

Article 31 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the transfer due to the violation of jurisdiction shall be an ex officio investigation by the court, and unlike the cases of transfer under Articles 31 (2) and 32 of the same Act, the party does not have the right to request the transfer, so even if the party filed an application for transfer, it is only the meaning of urging the court to make ex officio action. Thus, if the court below rejected the application even though there is no need for a trial on the application for transfer, if the decision was made by the court below without any disadvantage to the special appellant of the decision, and it is obvious that there is no benefit to make a special appeal against the decision. Thus, the special appeal is unlawful.

Articles 31(1) and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 78Ma207 dated July 20, 1978 (Gong1978, 11041) 84Da24 dated April 30, 1985 (Gong1985, 993)

UND Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Order 95Kahap3550 dated October 20, 1995

The special appeal shall be dismissed.

The records show that the application for transfer of this case by a special appellant is not under the jurisdiction of the Jeonju District Court, the first instance court, the military court of the first instance, but under the jurisdiction of the Seoul District Court. Thus, the transfer based on the violation of jurisdiction under Article 31 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act is a matter of ex officio investigation by the original court, and unlike the case of transfer under Articles 31 (2) and 32 of the same Act, the party does not have the right to request transfer, and even if the party applied for transfer, it does not have the right to request transfer, it is only the call for the court's ex officio action. Thus, even if the court below's decision dismissing the application for transfer of this case, although the court below did not have any disadvantage to the special appellant, the above decision does not give any disadvantage to the special appellant, and it is clear that there is no benefit to make a special appeal against this decision, and therefore, the special appeal of this case is unlawful (the decision of April 30, 1985).

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the special appeal of this case. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)