[집행문부여취소등결정에대한재항고][집15(1)민,150]
Cases not considered a successor after the conclusion of pleadings with respect to the granting of execution clause;
If the first succession by the defendant on the part of the final and conclusive judgment had already existed before the closing of the pleadings, even if the second succession had existed after the closing of the pleadings, this second successor cannot be deemed to be the so-called "the successor after the closing of the pleadings".
Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 481 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Other 1 et al.
Seoul High Court Order 66Ra40 delivered on January 7, 1967
The reappeal is dismissed.
The re-appellant's agent's re-appeal is considered.
If the first succession of the defendant on the part of the final and conclusive judgment had already existed before the date of the closing of argument, even if the second succession had already existed after the date of the closing of argument, this second successor cannot be seen as a successor after the closing of argument as stipulated in Articles 204 and 481 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the succeeding execution clause cannot be granted to such second successor. It is reasonable to view that the lower court’s decision as the same opinion as a party member is justifiable. The lower court did not err in the misapprehension of the application of Articles 204 and 481 of
This re-appeal is dismissed because it is unreasonable to see this question.
The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.
The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)