Whether a court’s measure, which determined a new date for pleading, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, constitutes an “decision” or “order” subject to an appeal (negative), and whether a court may, in a domestic lawsuit, dismiss an application for change of date and file an appeal against the date for pleading at the originally designated date (negative)

Articles 165, 258, 268(1), 439, and 449 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act

Special Appellants

An appeal shall be dismissed.

Before judging on the grounds for appeal, the appeal shall be considered lawful ex officio.

In the case of consolation money claim 2007Dhap802, the special appellant filed an application for change of the date for pleading on April 15, 2008, and filed an application for change of the date for pleading on April 15, 2008 between the applicant and the non-applicant, but the court rejected the application and opened the date for pleading while the non-applicant was present on the original date for pleading, and set a new date for pleading pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the same Act, pursuant to which the non-applicant did not present at the date for pleading, the purport of the appeal was “a appeal against the “disposition by non-Appearance of both parties” on the date for pleading, and to change it to the

However, if the purport of the instant appeal is to file an appeal against the court’s taking measures under Article 268(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is naturally an effect that the present party does not present at the meeting, and does not correspond to “decision” or “order,” which is the object of the appeal, as a matter of course, and if the party present at the meeting does not accept the application for change of the date and files an appeal against the date for pleading at the first designated date and date, the designation or change of the date for pleading in the domestic lawsuit cannot be filed even if the party does not accept the application for change of the date because it is within the jurisdiction of

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)