(b) The case holding that, where a person holding a right to collateral has provided a security to suspend compulsory execution based on the judgment of the court of first instance on the claim for the name map of a store until the judgment of an appellate court is pronounced, the ground for security ceases to exist if the person holding the right to collateral has dismissed the claim against the person holding the security by separate lawsuit

B. The case holding that, in a case where a person holding a right to security offered a security by a deposit of guarantee in order to suspend a compulsory execution based on a favorable judgment of the court of first instance regarding the claim for the name of a store until the appellate court rendered a judgment, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the person holding a right to security offered a security guarantees the right to claim damages equivalent to the rent that may be incurred due to failure to execute the order for the store during the period of suspension of compulsory execution, barring any special circumstance, and if the judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that the person holding a right to security offered the security had not been liable to compensate for damages due to the possession or use of the said store during the period of suspension of execution as a result of a separate lawsuit against the person holding the security, if the judgment dismissing the claim for

Security for the suspension of compulsory execution against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is to secure damage claim in a case where the creditor suffers damage by itself due to the suspension of compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 87Ka71, Mar. 29, 198; Supreme Court Order 79Ma74, Nov. 23, 1979).

The security offered by the applicant in this case is a guarantee deposit for the suspension of a compulsory execution based on the judgment in favor of the court of first instance rendered in favor of the court of provisional execution order against the applicant until the appellate court rendered the judgment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the re-appellant guarantees a claim for damages equivalent to the rent that may be incurred due to failure to execute the order for the store during the period of suspension of compulsory execution. Meanwhile, according to the records, the Re-Appellant's claim against the applicant for damages for the purpose of the above security by separate lawsuit against the applicant during the suspension period of execution, it can be known that the judgment dismissing the part of the claim becomes final and conclusive, because the non-existence of the secured claim by the right holder having the effect of the security in this case is uncertain and the existence of the non-existence of the claim is de facto extinguished. In this regard, the court below is justified in accepting the applicant's claim for cancellation of the security, and there is no ground for appeal as alleged by the re-appellant.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)