Deadline for Curing a Stamp Deficiency in a Petition of Appeal, Standing after a Collection Order, and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Standards in Three Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Procedure

Question

This brief uses three decisions to set out three issues: the effective deadline for curing a stamp deficiency before an order dismissing a petition of appeal is rendered; standing in a merits action on an attached claim where a collection order and an attachment by disposition on default concur; and the boundary between an enforcement judgment on a foreign arbitral award and grounds for an objection to the claim.

The first issue is the question addressed in Decision 2021Ma6542: "Can stamps paid after the correction period has expired and an order of dismissal has been rendered save the appeal?" The second issue is the question addressed in Judgment 2021Da252977: "Following the en banc Court's change of position, what is the debtor's standing to bring an action for performance after a collection order?"

The third issue is the question addressed in Judgment 2016Da49931: "If the taxes on which an arbitral award was premised are later substantially reduced, may enforcement of a foreign arbitral award of USD 32,601,248 be refused?" All three decisions ask how the boundaries of the statutory wording and the substantive factors for determination are to be identified on the record.

Material to check

First (2021Ma6542): this decision addresses whether an order dismissing a petition of appeal, rendered because the appellant failed to comply with an order to correct the stamp deficiency, becomes unlawful if the stamps are supplied after the order is rendered. In the record, check the amount of stamps affixed to the petition of appeal and the order to correct the stamp deficiency, which states the correction period set by the presiding judge of the court below. Next, examine how the order dismissing the petition of appeal was prepared and the time at which the judge completed the judicial electronic signature, and compare the time the order was rendered with the time the stamps were subsequently supplied. Also examine whether an application for litigation aid was made and the related application documents.

Second (2021Da252977): this judgment addresses whether, notwithstanding a collection order, the debtor retains standing to bring an action for performance concerning the attached claim, and whether the same rule applies to an attachment by disposition on default. In the record, check the attachment order and the collection order issued under the Civil Execution Act, and examine the scope of the attached claim and the wording authorising collection. Next, examine the record of the action for performance brought by the debtor against the third-party debtor, and compare the time the action was filed with the time the collection order was issued. For a claim attached by disposition on default, also check the record of the attachment by disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act.

Third (2016Da49931): this judgment addresses the standard under which a breach in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or in the arbitral procedure constitutes a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement; whether grounds for an objection to the claim arising after the award was rendered may be treated as a violation of public policy; and the standard for finding an abuse of rights on the basis that the award conflicts with the substantive legal relationship. In the record, check the arbitration agreement between the parties and the records of the tribunal's composition and the conduct of the arbitral proceedings, and examine whether the agreement was breached and how the proceedings progressed. Next, examine the foreign arbitral award and the records showing the circumstances up to the close of argument in the action for an enforcement judgment, and compare the grounds that arose after the award was rendered. To test an argument that the award conflicts with the substantive legal relationship, also check the related documents showing the nature of the rights, the circumstances in which the award was rendered, and similar matters.

Possible readings

In Case 2021Ma6542, the issue was whether an order dismissing a petition of appeal, rendered because the appellant failed to comply with an order to correct the stamp deficiency, is unlawful where the appellant supplied the stamps after the order was rendered.

In Case 2021Da252977, the issues were whether, where a collection order has been issued on the debtor's claim against a third-party debtor, the debtor loses standing to bring an action for performance, and whether the same applies where the State has attached the claim under the National Tax Collection Act.

In Case 2016Da49931, the issues were the degree of infringement of procedural rights required to constitute a ground for refusal under Article 5(1)(d) of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; whether enforcement may be refused under Article 5(2)(b) of the same Convention where grounds for an objection to the claim arise after the award; and the meaning of the circumstance that an arbitral award conflicts with the substantive legal relationship.

What the decisions held

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2021Ma6542 dated 24 July 2025 held: "Accordingly, after the point at which an order dismissing a petition of appeal has been rendered on the ground of failure to comply with an order to correct the stamp deficiency, the order of dismissal does not become unlawful, absent special circumstances, even if the appellant supplies the stamps." In this decision, the Court explained that Article 399(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provide that, if the stamp deficiency is not cured within a reasonable period, the presiding judge of the court below must dismiss the petition of appeal by order. An order is issued when it is lawfully rendered; an order in the form of an electronic document is rendered when the judge completes the judicial electronic signature, and, absent a specific provision, the court is thereupon bound and cannot itself revoke or alter it. Accordingly, even if the stamps are supplied after the order of dismissal has been rendered, the order does not become unlawful absent special circumstances. The Court considered that the legislative purpose is to reduce the burden on the courts and to prevent abusive appeals, and read the immediate appeal under Article 399(3) as permitting a challenge on the ground of a defect existing when the order was rendered. An order already rendered is not to be revoked for the benefit of an appellant who neither used litigation aid under Article 128 nor cured the deficiency, and the conflicting part of Decision 2018Ma5882 was overruled.

Supreme Court en banc Judgment 2021Da252977 delivered 23 October 2025 held: "(a) The debtor's bringing an action for performance concerning the attached claim against the third-party debtor does not contravene the collection order, and there is no legal basis for holding that the debtor loses standing to bring an action for performance merely because a collection order exists." In this judgment, the majority opinion held that, because a collection order does not transfer the claim, bringing an action for performance does not contravene the attachment and the collection order. The debtor retains its interests in interrupting prescription and securing a title of execution, so its standing cannot be removed without a legal basis, and the collecting creditor can be protected through intervention and a certificate of execution for a successor. The third-party debtor can avoid double payment by making a deposit and by asserting an impediment to execution, and maintaining the action can reduce the burden of defending suits and the repetition of disputes. The majority overruled Supreme Court Judgment 99Da23888 delivered 11 April 2000, Supreme Court Judgment 2009Da48879 delivered 12 November 2009, and other judgments to the same effect. The dissenting opinion argued that, given the express purpose of the collection action and legal stability, the previous rule that standing belongs exclusively to the collecting creditor should be maintained.

Supreme Court Judgment 2016Da49931 delivered 13 December 2018 held: "However, to constitute a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the above provision, it is not sufficient merely that the parties' agreement or a non-mandatory provision was breached; the infringement of a party's procedural rights by the arbitral proceedings must be so serious as to be intolerable." In this judgment, the Court held that, even where the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the procedure departed from the agreement, recognition and enforcement may be refused only where the infringement of procedural rights is serious and intolerable. Its position is that, where grounds for an objection to the claim arise after the award is rendered and permitting enforcement would be contrary to fundamental principles, enforcement may be refused under Article 5(2)(b) of the New York Convention. The Court held that enforcement cannot be refused merely because the award conflicts with the substantive legal relationship or because that conflict is recognised, but may be refused where enforcement amounts to an abuse of rights or a violation of good morals and public order. The standard is that grounds for an objection to the claim exist where there are grounds corresponding to grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act such that enforcement would be manifestly unjust and requiring the debtor to endure it would clearly be contrary to justice. In this case, the Court rejected the arguments concerning the composition of the tribunal and the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, but treated the part relating to the reduction of corporate tax as an abuse of rights, and reversed and remanded the part concerning USD 32,601,248.

Practical checklist

First, can stamps paid after the correction period has expired and an order of dismissal has been rendered save the appeal? In the record, compare the reasonable period set by the order to correct the stamp deficiency, the time at which the stamps were actually supplied, and the time at which the judicial electronic signature on the order dismissing the petition of appeal was completed, and check whether the sequence before and after the rendering of the order of dismissal has been established.

Second, following the en banc Court's change of position, what is the debtor's standing to bring an action for performance after a collection order? In the record, compare the operative wording of the collection order, the scope of the attachment, and the time the action for performance was filed, and check the assessment of whether the debtor retains the right and whether there is any breach of the collection order.

Third, if the taxes on which an arbitral award was premised are later substantially reduced, may enforcement of a foreign arbitral award of USD 32,601,248 be refused? In the record, consider together the circumstances in which the award was rendered, the circumstances arising between the award and the enforcement judgment, and the effect on the parties if enforcement is permitted, and check the assessment of whether there is an abuse of rights or a violation of good morals and public order.

Glossary

Standard for the effective deadline for curing a stamp deficiency in a petition of appeal and the time an order of dismissal is rendered (2021Ma6542): Article 399(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provide that, if the stamp deficiency is not cured within a reasonable period, the presiding judge of the court below must dismiss the petition of appeal by order. An order is issued when it is lawfully rendered; an order in the form of an electronic document is rendered when the judge completes the judicial electronic signature, and, absent a specific provision, the court is thereupon bound and cannot itself revoke or alter it. Accordingly, even if the stamps are supplied after the order of dismissal has been rendered, the order does not become unlawful absent special circumstances. The Court considered that the legislative purpose is to reduce the burden on the courts and to prevent abusive appeals, and read the immediate appeal under Article 399(3) as permitting a challenge on the ground of a defect existing when the order was rendered. An order already rendered is not to be revoked for the benefit of an appellant who neither used litigation aid under Article 128 nor cured the deficiency, and the conflicting part of Decision 2018Ma5882 was overruled. The factors identified include whether the correction period was observed, when the order was rendered, and whether special circumstances exist.

Effect of a collection order and an attachment for tax default on standing to sue (2021Da252977): The majority opinion held that, because a collection order does not transfer the claim, bringing an action for performance does not contravene the attachment and the collection order. The debtor retains its interests in interrupting prescription and securing a title of execution, so its standing cannot be removed without a legal basis, and the collecting creditor can be protected through intervention and a certificate of execution for a successor. The third-party debtor can avoid double payment by making a deposit and by asserting an impediment to execution, and maintaining the action can reduce the burden of defending suits and the repetition of disputes. The majority overruled Supreme Court Judgment 99Da23888 delivered 11 April 2000, Supreme Court Judgment 2009Da48879 delivered 12 November 2009, and other judgments to the same effect. The dissenting opinion argued that, given the express purpose of the collection action and legal stability, the previous rule that standing belongs exclusively to the collecting creditor should be maintained. The factors identified include whether the collection order is contravened, the interest in bringing an action for performance, and whether the collecting creditor can be protected.

Standards for refusing enforcement of a foreign arbitral award and for objections to the claim (2016Da49931): The Court held that, even where the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the procedure departed from the agreement, recognition and enforcement may be refused only where the infringement of procedural rights is serious and intolerable. Its position is that, where grounds for an objection to the claim arise after the award is rendered and permitting enforcement would be contrary to fundamental principles, enforcement may be refused under Article 5(2)(b) of the New York Convention. The Court held that enforcement cannot be refused merely because the award conflicts with the substantive legal relationship or because that conflict is recognised, but may be refused where enforcement amounts to an abuse of rights or a violation of good morals and public order. The standard is that grounds for an objection to the claim exist where there are grounds corresponding to grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act such that enforcement would be manifestly unjust and requiring the debtor to endure it would clearly be contrary to justice. In this case, the Court rejected the arguments concerning the composition of the tribunal and the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, but treated the part relating to the reduction of corporate tax as an abuse of rights, and reversed and remanded the part concerning USD 32,601,248. The factors identified include the nature and content of the rights, the circumstances in which the award was rendered, and the effect of enforcement on the parties.

Sources and limitations

This brief is based solely on the texts, published on the Korea Law Information Center, of Articles 51, 216, 254, 399 and 402 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 26, 27, 44, 229, 238 and 249 of the Civil Execution Act, and Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act, and on the texts of Supreme Court Decision 2021Ma6542 dated 24 July 2025, Supreme Court Judgment 2021Da252977 delivered 23 October 2025, and Supreme Court Judgment 2016Da49931 delivered 13 December 2018.

This is academic research material setting out general legal principles and standards for reviewing case records; it is neither legal advice on any individual case nor an opinion for submission to a court.

Points left open

2021Ma6542: By when must a party who cannot know the time at which the order is rendered pay the stamps?

2021Da252977: Even after this judgment, how far does the effect of a final and conclusive judgment against the debtor extend to the collecting creditor?

2016Da49931: If the disputed tax of KRW 20,872,365,420 is reduced after the award to KRW 560,692,880, to what extent is enforcement of the award as rendered permissible?

When to reconsider

2021Ma6542: There is room for revisiting the conclusion if time records show that the deficiency was cured before the order of dismissal was rendered. The conclusion is also re-examined if a specific provision permitting revocation or alteration is identified.

2021Da252977: The conclusion may be revisited if the record shows that the right of collection was extinguished, for example by the collecting creditor's withdrawal of the application.

2016Da49931: The conclusion is revisited where the record reveals the extent to which the administrative disposition underlying the award was changed after the award by another judgment or disposition, and the effect of that change on enforcement.

Statutes referred to

• 민사소송법 제51조, 제216조, 제254조, 제399조, 제402조
• 민사집행법 제26조, 제27조, 제44조, 제229조, 제238조, 제249조
• 중재법 제37조, 제38조, 제39조

Decisions referred to

• 대법원 2025. 7. 24. 자 2021마6542 전원합의체 결정 · Decision ledger
• 대법원 2025. 10. 23. 선고 2021다252977 전원합의체 판결 · Decision ledger
• 대법원 2018. 12. 13. 선고 2016다49931 판결 · Decision ledger

Verification status

The cited provisions (Articles 51, 216, 254, 399 and 402 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 26, 27, 44, 229, 238 and 249 of the Civil Execution Act; Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act) and the decisions discussed (Supreme Court Decision 2021Ma6542 dated 24 July 2025; Supreme Court Judgment 2021Da252977 delivered 23 October 2025; Supreme Court Judgment 2016Da49931 delivered 13 December 2018) were checked, as of 15 October 2026, against the current legislation on the Korea Law Information Center and the original texts of the Supreme Court decisions. This brief cites only the three decisions listed among the decisions discussed.