The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the facts established by the court below as the facts without dispute between the parties, the plaintiff borrowed 1.755 million U.S. dollars from the defendant, set up a mortgage on the real estate located in Japan as its physical collateral, and delivers the company's share certificates to Japan. On the condition of the Government's approval and permission, the plaintiff agreed to set a pledge by delivering the company's share certificates to the defendant, which is the plaintiff, on condition of the Government's approval and permission, and pursuant to the above share certificates delivery agreement, the defendant filed a claim for extradition of the share certificates of this case against the plaintiff on October 21, 1981, and the judgment in favor of the defendant became final and conclusive.

In addition, Article 24 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prohibits the act of establishing a pledge on the securities located in Korea without the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and Article 35 of the same Act prohibits the act of establishing a pledge on the securities without the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and Article 35 of the same Act provides that the defendant punished the act of violation. The defendant, despite the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the share certificates that the contract on the establishment of a pledge is a condition to suspend the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, the act of executing the above judgment without the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy should not be allowed as compelling the plaintiff to commit a criminal act, and the intention of the defendant to enforce the above judgment is inconsistent with the motive of executing the above judgment by receiving the entire domestic investment shares, and thus, the execution of the above judgment is against the law or abuse of rights.

The Foreign Exchange Control Act has penal provisions on offenses in order to achieve the unique purpose of balance of payments, stabilization of monetary values, and efficient operation of foreign currency funds by managing foreign exchange and its foreign trade. The acts violating the above restrictive provisions are not only acts that do not conform to the purpose of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, but also acts that do not immediately constitute tort or nullification under the Civil Act. Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant have pledged share certificates without permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy, such acts cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant have established a pledge on share certificates, they cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, the circumstances that the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy is a condition for execution, and the execution of the judgment is merely a cause to obstruct the execution, and it cannot be considered as tort or abuse of rights against the Plaintiff itself. As long as the conditions for the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy are attached, the Plaintiff may not be subject to punishment.

In addition, the reason that there is another security in Japan or intended to control domestic shares can not be a reason that the execution of the judgment is not socially acceptable as much as it would be abuse of rights.

For the same purport, the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the defendant's execution of a judgment of delivery of share certificates did not constitute abuse of rights or tort.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below that the contract of pledge on share certificates was a condition of suspension on the permission and approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and even if there was any evidence related thereto, it did not go against the rules of evidence and there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to whether it was a conditional agreement in the judgment ordering the delivery of share certificates or not, the judgment on conditional agreement was interrupted by res judicata as the grounds before the closing of argument at the court of fact-finding, and thus, it does not constitute a ground for objection. There is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)