[2] The case holding that the above assertion does not constitute a legitimate special appeal in case where: (a) the decision ordering the suspension of compulsory execution on condition that the State’s application for the suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment on the provisional execution declaration of the claim for indemnity filed by the insurance company Gap against the State was made; and (b) the State made a special appeal in violation of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Provision of Stamps Stamps A and Deposit

Article 449(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a special appeal may be made to the Supreme Court only on the ground that there is a violation of the Constitution that affected the trial with respect to a ruling or an order, rule, or disposition, which is the premise of the trial, or that the judgment is unreasonable. Thus, the mere fact that a ruling or order was in violation of the Act or is in violation of the Supreme Court precedents, does not constitute a special appeal.

According to the records, in a claim for reimbursement amount claim between the respondent and the applicant, the same court applied for the suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment of the provisional execution sentence rendered on December 27, 2013 by the same court, and the court below rendered a decision ordering the suspension of compulsory execution based on the above judgment of the provisional execution sentence until the appellate court rendered a judgment of the above case, on January 9, 2014, on the condition that the applicant deposits five million won as security.

The gist of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the court below ordered the applicant who is the State to suspend compulsory execution on the condition of deposit under the Civil Procedure Act is contrary to Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Attaching and the Provision of Deposit, and thus, the purport of seeking correction is sought. However, in light of the above legal principles, the grounds asserted by the applicant do not constitute a legitimate special appeal, and there is no other evidence to deem that there exists a special appeal under Article 449(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, such as violation of the Constitution that affected the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)