beta
(영문) 대법원 1963. 3. 21. 선고 63다70 판결

[가압류집행에대한제3자이의][집11(1)민,209]

Main Issues

Litigation and Exclusive Jurisdiction over Execution

Summary of Judgment

Even if a single judge conducts a trial affairs concerning enforcement pursuant to Articles 7(3) and 29 of the former Court Organization Act (Law No. 1107, Jul. 14, 62), the court of execution shall have tried by the collegiate panel of the district court, which is the court of execution, the court of execution itself, in the lawsuit of enforcement of enforcement under this Article, and shall not be in violation of the exclusive jurisdiction.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 503 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 7(3) and 29 of the Court Organization Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Maternity

Defendant-Appellant

Red salgos

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court Decision 62Na192 delivered on January 10, 1963, Busan High Court Decision 62Na192 delivered on January 10, 1963

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant representative

The court affairs concerning enforcement under Articles 7(3) and 29 of the Court Organization Act shall be judged by the collegiate panel of the Busan District Court, the executing court itself, even if a single judge performs such affairs, since it is obvious by Article 503 of the Civil Procedure Act that the executing court itself is a district court. Thus, the execution of this case was judged by the collegiate panel of the Busan District Court, the executing

The issue is groundless

The Second Ground of Appeal

It can not be found that the facts of the theory in accordance with the evidence stated in the original judgment do not exist and that there was no error in the process of its recognition.

The lower portion of Nonparty 1’s YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

In the end, the issue is that it is nothing more than criticism of the lower court's entire authority on the determination of the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding, and it cannot be adopted.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)