Article 461(2)1 of the Civil Procedure Act means the meaning of “where a procedure for a public summons is not permitted under the law”

Article 461 (2) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a public summons procedure is not permitted by law" refers to cases where abstract and general grounds exist to recognize the public summons procedure, and the fact-finding among specific and individual procedures are not erroneous, so the defendant's assertion that a judgment of nullification has been received by filing a false report even though the defendant was not the last holder of the relevant promissory note, nor the fact that it was lost is not a ground for objection to the judgment of nullification.

Article 461(2)1 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da989 Delivered on July 24, 1970

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na567 delivered on June 16, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 461 (2) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act is one of the grounds for objection to a nullification judgment, and "when the highest procedure of public notice is not permitted in accordance with the law" refers to abstract, general, and there is no legal basis to recognize it. It does not refer to a case where the fact-finding is conducted within specific and individual procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da989 delivered on July 24, 1970). In this regard, the judgment of the court below is just to conclude that the defendant who is the plaintiff's assertion is not the last holder of the Promissory Notes, and that the Supreme Court reported the loss of the Promissory Notes to the last holder of the Supreme Court and received the nullification judgment by the highest court due to the fact that it is lost to the last holder of the Promissory Notes, and it is not a ground for objection to the nullification judgment, and the Supreme Court Decision 73Da1630 delivered on April 9, 1974 cannot be a precedent different from this case and the case.

The court below's decision cannot adopt an issue because it has an error such as incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles, or violation of precedents.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)