Dismissal of Appeal for Unpaid Litigation Fee... Supreme Court: "Order Not Canceled Even If Fee Paid Same Day"

Nine Justices in the Majority Order Remand
Four Justices Dissent

The Supreme Court en banc (Presiding Justice No Taeak) overturned the lower court's ruling that accepted Mr. A's immediate appeal against the order to dismiss the appeal and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court on the 24th. (Photo by Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a party fails to pay the filing fee (the litigation fee paid to the court) with the notice of appeal and receives an order of dismissal due to this deficiency, the order remains valid even if the fee is paid immediately afterward.

The Supreme Court en banc (Presiding Justice Noh Taeak) on July 24 overturned a lower court's decision that had ordered the cancellation of the first-instance judge's dismissal order in a case filed by Mr. A, and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court.

Mr. A filed an appeal against the first-instance judgment but did not attach the filing fee to the notice of appeal. The first-instance judge issued an order of dismissal due to the lack of the fee. Mr. A paid the fee on the same day the order was issued. Subsequently, the dismissal order was served to Mr. A, who then filed an immediate appeal against the order.

The lower court argued that since Mr. A paid the fee on the same day the order was issued, the deficiency was remedied, and thus the dismissal order was unlawful.

However, the Supreme Court, in its majority opinion, held that even if the fee was paid on the same day, the lower court should have clarified the chronological order between the time the dismissal order was established and the time Mr. A paid the fee, and determined the lawfulness of the dismissal order accordingly. The Supreme Court stated, "The lower court should have identified the exact times when the order of dismissal was established and when the fee was paid to determine whether the order was unlawful," adding, "It was incorrect to cancel the order of dismissal solely on the basis that the fee was paid on the same day." In other words, the order cannot be canceled simply because the fee was paid on the same day.

In response to this majority opinion, Justice Lee Heungku presented a dissenting view, stating, "Even if the order of dismissal was established, if the appellant lawfully filed an immediate appeal and remedied the deficiency by paying the fee, there is a valid reason for the immediate appeal, and the order of dismissal should be canceled." Justices Oh Kyungmi and Seo Kyunghwan dissented, stating, "If the appellant remedied the deficiency by paying the fee before the order took effect, the order of dismissal should be canceled." Justice Lee Sugyeon also dissented, stating, "If the fee was remedied on the same day the order of dismissal was established, the remedy should be considered valid."

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