Supreme Court: "Dismissal Appropriate When Appeal Notice Cannot Be Delivered"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that the precedent allowing a court to dismiss a case if a copy of the appeal is not delivered in an appellate trial is valid.

On the 22nd, the Supreme Court en banc decided to uphold the existing precedent that permits the court to dismiss an appeal ex officio if the appellant fails to correct the opponent's address, resulting in the appeal not being delivered within the deadline.

Defendant A lost part of a civil trial and filed an appeal. The lower court attempted to deliver the appeal to plaintiff B, but delivery failed due to an unknown recipient.

Accordingly, the lower court judge issued a correction order to A, instructing him to correct B's address within five days. Although A directly received the address correction order, he did not comply within the period, and the lower court dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court en banc stated, "The current precedent serves as a sanction against appellants who fail to meet the minimum requirements necessary for the appellate trial process," adding, "It aligns with the literal interpretation of Article 402, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Act and is reasonable considering the legislative history." Furthermore, it said, "Ordering the appellant to correct the address is not an excessive burden, and since the correction order forewarns of dismissal of the appeal, it is sufficiently predictable," thereby rejecting the rehearing petition.

However, Justices Park Sang-ok, Lee Ki-taek, and Lee Dong-won dissented. They stated, "It is unfair to impose the disadvantage solely on the appellant when the appellant did not cause the failure of delivery of the appeal."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.