Ruling Issued Ignoring Rescheduled Date? Supreme Court Orders Retrial

The Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling, citing a "serious procedural violation," after a presiding judge mistakenly issued a verdict on a previously scheduled date despite having postponed it.

The First Division of the Supreme Court (Justice Shin Sook-hee presiding) overturned the lower court's ruling, which had gone against the plaintiff in a lawsuit over a payment agreement last month, and remanded the case to the Daejeon District Court.

Initially, the appellate division of the Daejeon District Court concluded the arguments on October 28 of last year and scheduled the sentencing date for December 9, notifying the parties involved.

On December 8, the presiding judge exercised their authority to reschedule the sentencing to the afternoon of December 16. However, on the morning of December 16, the judge issued another order to postpone the sentencing to January 13 of the following year.

The order to change the date was served to the legal representatives of both the plaintiff and the defendant on the morning of December 16.

Nevertheless, the appellate judge proceeded to issue the verdict on the afternoon of December 16. The following morning, a court clerk notified both legal representatives by phone that the order to change the date had been sent by mistake and that the verdict had already been rendered, subsequently discarding the original copy of the date-change order.

In the appeal filed by the plaintiff who lost the case, the Supreme Court pointed out that there was a "serious violation in the sentencing procedure," overturned the lower court's decision, and sent the case back for a new trial.

The Supreme Court ruled, "Since the presiding judge of the lower court issued the order to change the date on December 16 and notified both parties by serving the transcript, the order became effective, and the sentencing date should be considered changed to January 13." The court added, "This conclusion remains unchanged even if the error was due to a court oversight or if the document was discarded afterward."

The court further noted, "Ultimately, December 16 was no longer a valid sentencing date. Therefore, the lower court rendered a verdict on a day that was not the scheduled sentencing date, which is equivalent to issuing a ruling without designating and notifying a proper sentencing date, constituting a serious violation of the sentencing procedure."
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.