[담보취소결정에대한재항고][공1976.9.1.(543),9292]
Whether it is impossible for the plaintiff to cancel the security offered by the defendant, etc. without any security reason in the appellate court of the case on the merits of the case, for the purpose of expanding the amount of damages equivalent to the rent, or for the purpose of provisional seizure.
The security offered by the defendant, etc. for the purpose of suspending a compulsory execution by misunderstanding that the judgment of the court of first instance on the housing name case had not attached a declaration of provisional execution is not attached, and there is no security ground from the beginning, and the plaintiff is in preparation for the extension of damages equivalent to the rent at the appellate court of the case on the merits of this case, or in preparation for the provisional seizure of the deposit money of this case cannot be deemed a security ground, so the security ground
Re-appellant
Chang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. and 3 others
Seoul High Court Order 76Ra27 Dated April 14, 1976
The reappeal is dismissed.
The re-appellant's grounds for re-appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below dismissed the appeal of this case since the Re-Appellant is in preparation for expanding the rent in the appellate court of this case to claim damages equivalent to the rent in the case of this case, or the reason that the Re-Appellant is in preparation for expanding the rent in the case of this case, or preparation for provisional attachment of the deposit money is not a security for the purpose of suspending the compulsory execution by misunderstanding that the provisional execution order was attached even though the other party did not attach a declaration of provisional execution, and applying for the suspension of compulsory execution. Thus, the Re-Appellant cannot conduct compulsory execution since the Re-Appellant did not have received a judgment in favor of the court of provisional execution, and the other party does not need any request for the suspension of compulsory execution and there is no need for the other party to provide the security for damages arising from the suspension of compulsory execution. Thus, the above security cannot be deemed to have been a security ground, and thus the above security should be revoked. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below and its measures are just and there is no reason to conclude any error.
Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Presiding Yellow (Presiding Justice)
Justices Lee Byung-ho et al.