[2] The time limit where the debtor can submit the documents under Article 510 subparag. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (=before an assignment order becomes final and conclusive) and the measures to be taken by the reappeal in case where the above documents are submitted to the reappeal

[2] The debtor should be deemed to have been able to submit the documents under Article 510 subparagraph 2 of the same Act before the assignment order became final and conclusive. Thus, even in the case where the above documents were submitted during the course of the re-appeal trial, the court of re-appeal has suspended the trial as to the reappeal, and has decided whether to accept the reappeal according to the type of final revocation of execution, and where the re-appeal court reverses the order of the court below by citing the reappeal, it shall be deemed that the case constitutes a sufficient time to directly render a judgment. Therefore,

In case where a debtor submits the documents under Article 510 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act after the assignment order was issued, the appellate court shall suspend the trial on appeal under Article 563 (8) of the same Act except for the case where the whole order is revoked for other reasons, and thereafter, the court of appeal shall order the provisional suspension of execution to a final cancellation of execution or to a continuous termination of execution, and in the case where the termination of execution is made due to a cancellation of execution, the appeal shall be accepted and the whole order shall be revoked, and in the case where the termination of execution is made due to a continuous termination of execution, the appeal shall be dismissed. Meanwhile, in the case where the above documents have been submitted during the course of the course of the course of the re-appeal, the debtor may submit the documents under Article 510 subparagraph 2 of the same Act before the assignment order became final. Thus, even in the case where the above documents were submitted, the appellate court has suspended the trial on reappeal, but has decided whether to accept the reappeal under any procedure of final cancellation of execution, and the court of reappeal shall directly revoke the assignment order by itself.

According to the records, the first instance court issued the order of seizure and assignment of the claim for collection of the provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure claim against the re-appellant of the Seoul District Court on August 10, 1998, based on the provisional execution declaration of the provisional execution declaration case of the non-appeal 96Gadan4640 delivered on June 30, 1998, the creditor, the debtor, and the third debtor as the Republic of Korea. Since the court of first instance submitted the provisional execution of the above real estate provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure claim against the above provisional execution provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure claim against the above provisional execution provisional execution provisional execution provisional execution. Thus, the court below's order maintaining the above seizure and assignment order without necessity

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and since it is sufficient to directly judge a party member, the claim attachment and assignment order (the first instance judgment) of this case is revoked, and the above application for attachment and assignment order is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)