Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Appellate jurisdiction where only part of the claim is appealed
Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2025Da213314 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 손해배상(기)·손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the value of the claim exceeded KRW 200 million during the first-instance proceedings but only part of it was appealed, so that the value on appeal is KRW 200 million or less, which court must hear the appeal?
Holding
The High Court must hear the appeal. Appellate jurisdiction is exclusive and follows from the existence of the first-instance court, so where the value of the claim exceeded KRW 200 million when the action was brought or when the statement of claim was expanded, the High Court's jurisdiction is already fixed, and a partial appeal bringing the value on appeal down to KRW 200 million or less does not disturb it.
Points at issue, verbatim
제1심 소송 과정에서 소송목적의 값이 2억 원을 초과하였다가 그중 일부에 대해서만 항소가 제기되어 항소심의 소송목적의 값이 2억 원 이하가 된 경우, 항소심의 관할 법원(=고등법원)
Unofficial English translation
Where the value of the object of the action in the lawsuit of the court of first instance exceeded 200 million won but an appeal was filed only as to part thereof, so that the value of the object of the action in the appellate instance became 200 million won or less, the court with jurisdiction over the appeal (= the High Court)
Disposition
Reversed and transferred Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 이송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is transferred to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
심급관할은 제1심법원의 존재에 의하여 결정되는 전속관할이어서 이미 정하여진 항소심의 관할에는 영향이 없다
Unofficial English translation
Jurisdiction by instance is exclusive jurisdiction determined by the existence of the court of first instance, and thus has no effect on the already determined jurisdiction of the appeal
Factors
- 제1심 소송 과정에서 소송목적의 값이 2억 원을 초과하였다가
- 그중 일부에 대해서만 항소가 제기되어
- 항소심의 소송목적의 값이 2억 원 이하가 된 경우
- 항소심의 관할 법원(=고등법원)
Unofficial English translation
• Where the value of the object of the action in the lawsuit of the court of first instance exceeded 200 million won,
• but an appeal was filed only as to part thereof,
• and the value of the object of the action in the appellate instance became 200 million won or less,
• the court with jurisdiction over the appeal (= the High Court)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1992. 5. 12. 선고 92다2066 판결(공1992, 1846)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 92Da2066 decided May 12, 1992 (Gong 1992, 1846)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1992. 5. 12. 선고 92다2066 판결(공1992, 1846)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the application to amend the statement of claim and its basis that carried the value of the claim past KRW 200 million was rejected or withdrawn before the first-instance judgment, would the appeal still have to be heard by the High Court?
A first-instance record showing that the amendment of 25 June 2024 was later rejected or withdrawn would show how the moment at which appellate jurisdiction is fixed is treated. A change to the KRW 200 million threshold in Article 28(ii) of the Court Organization Act or Article 4(1)(i) of the Rules on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Civil and Family Cases, or a later Supreme Court decision on the effect of a rejected or withdrawn amendment to the statement of claim, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 3 (disposition), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 3 (Disposition): Primary “Reversed and transferred” vs Independent “Other”
The primary reading recorded a reversal with remand and the independent reading used the other category. Because the order reverses the judgment and transfers the case to the Seoul High Court, the primary value was corrected to reversed and transferred on November 7, 2026, upon comparison with the original text. The other label does not capture the reversal, and the earlier reversed-and-remanded label did not capture the transfer, which differs from a remand.
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 이송한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the application to amend the statement of claim and its basis that carried the value of the claim past KRW 200 million was rejected or withdrawn before the first-instance judgment, would the appeal still have to be heard by the High Court?” vs Independent “How should the substantive grounds of appeal be resolved after transfer to the competent High Court?”
The primary reading asks whether the appeal would still go to the High Court if the amendment raising the value was rejected or withdrawn before judgment, while the independent reading asks how the substantive grounds of appeal should be decided after transfer.
제1심 소송 과정에서 소송목적의 값이 2억 원을 초과하였다가 그중 일부에 대해서만 항소가 제기되어 항소심의 소송목적의 값이 2억 원 이하가 된 경우, 항소심의 관할 법원(=고등법원)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 16 May 2025 (2024Na66602, 66619), heard the appeal as a joint panel of the district court. The official text does not set out that court's own reasoning on jurisdiction; what it records is only that a district court joint panel tried the appeal against the first-instance judgment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 25 September 2025 (2025Da213314, 213315), decided the point on its own motion and held that the court below had breached exclusive jurisdiction. By the application to amend the statement of claim and its basis filed on 25 June 2024, the value of the claim for the principal action exceeded KRW 200 million, so the High Court was the court to hear the appeal. It set the judgment aside without reviewing the grounds of appeal and transferred the case to the Seoul High Court, the four participating Justices agreeing.
Distinguishing conditions
- A first-instance civil case in which the value of the claim did not exceed KRW 200 million when the action was brought or when the statement of claim was expanded, since the threshold is measured at those moments.
- A dispute over which district court has territorial jurisdiction, since this decision decides only which level of court must hear the appeal.
- An event not governed by Article 28(ii) of the Court Organization Act and Article 4(1)(i) of the Rules on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Civil and Family Cases, whose provisions the Court applied.
Record verification notes
Fix the value of the claim when the action was brought and when the statement of claim was expanded, and set each figure against the KRW 200 million threshold; here it was the amendment of 25 June 2024 that carried the principal claim past it. Then check which court heard the appeal and against which parts of the claim the appeal was taken, since a partial appeal is what the decision turns on. The Supreme Court decided jurisdiction on its own motion and expressly left the substantive grounds of appeal undecided, so this decision tells you nothing about the merits.
From the official text
Points at issue
제1심 소송 과정에서 소송목적의 값이 2억 원을 초과하였다가 그중 일부에 대해서만 항소가 제기되어 항소심의 소송목적의 값이 2억 원 이하가 된 경우, 항소심의 관할 법원(=고등법원)
Unofficial English translation
Where the value of the object of the action in the lawsuit of the court of first instance exceeded 200 million won but an appeal was filed only as to part thereof, so that the value of the object of the action in the appellate instance became 200 million won or less, the court with jurisdiction over the appeal (= the High Court)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 이송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is transferred to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제33조, 법원조직법 제28조 제2호, 민사 및 가사소송의 사물관할에 관한 규칙 제4조 제1항 제1호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger