[2] In a case where a creditor who was sentenced to a provisional execution declaration in the first instance court filed an appeal, and thereafter applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by an obligor at the court of execution based on the above judgment, and the court of appeal became final and conclusive in lieu of conciliation, the debtor submitted the original copy of the decision to the court of execution; a judicial assistant officer at the court of execution filed an immediate appeal against cancellation of the procedure for compulsory execution on the ground that the judgment became null and void due to the above decision's final and conclusive decision, and the creditor raised an immediate appeal against it; and a record was sent to the court of execution after the court of execution decided to authorize the disposition of the judicial assistant at the court of execution, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles

[3] In a case where the court of first instance applied for a compulsory auction based on the judgment after receiving a favorable judgment in favor of the court of first instance, the scope of invalidation of the above judgment where a conciliation or compromise has been established at the appellate court

[2] In a case where a creditor who was sentenced to a provisional execution declaration in the first instance court filed an appeal, based on the original copy of the above judgment, filed an application for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the debtor at the court of execution, and the court of appeal became final and conclusive in lieu of conciliation, the debtor submitted the original copy of the judgment to the court of execution; the judicial assistant of the court of execution filed an immediate appeal on the ground that the judgment became null and void due to the above decision's final and conclusive decision, defect in the decision revoking the compulsory auction procedure due to the creditor's objection; and the creditor filed an immediate appeal; and the court of execution issued a decision approving the disposition by the judicial assistant; and then sent the record to the court of execution after the court of execution delivered the decision to the court of execution, the case held that an objection is raised against the execution in a case where there is an objection against the judgment revoking the execution disposition by submitting the document for cancellation of execution; although the document submitted by the court of execution to the court of execution was written "Immediate appeal", it should be viewed

[3] In case where a compulsory auction (including a decision in lieu of conciliation) or compromise is established at an appellate court after a judgment was rendered in favor of the court of first instance in favor of the court of first instance, the effect of the judgment of the court of first instance and the sentence of provisional execution shall be invalidated only in respect of the portion which has reduced the scope of acceptance compared with the judgment of the court of first instance, and shall still have the effect

1. According to Article 15(1) of the Civil Execution Act, an immediate appeal may be filed only when special provisions exist with respect to a judgment by the court of execution on the execution procedure. An immediate appeal may be filed against a judgment by the court of execution on the execution procedure pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Civil Execution Act. However, according to Article 50(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act, a judgment revoking a disposition of execution by submission of documents revoking execution is not allowed, and thus, an objection against the execution should be raised.

2. According to the record, the Re-Appellant filed a suit against the debtor on April 25, 2008 with Seoul Southern District Court 2006 Gohap 12511, and on April 25, 2008, the judgment of the court below 200% per annum from July 27, 2006 to April 25, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the court of Seoul High Court 200% per annum from 205 to the date of the above order of cancellation of the compulsory auction as 10% per annum from the date of the above judgment of the court below 205 to the date of the above order of cancellation of the compulsory auction as 10% per annum 25% per annum from the day after the above judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and the court of Seoul High Court 205% per annum 208 to the date of repayment.

3. In light of the above legal principles, in a case where there is an objection against the judgment revoking the enforcement disposition by submitting the documents revoking enforcement, an objection against the enforcement shall be raised. Therefore, even if the document submitted by the court of execution is indicated as “the petition for immediate appeal”, it shall be deemed that an objection has been filed regarding the enforcement. Therefore, it is erroneous for the Seoul Western District Court, Seoul Western District Court, a executing court, to send the remaining records that mistaken the objection of this case as an immediate appeal by a single judge of the Seoul Western District Court, to the court of execution. Accordingly, the court of execution sent the records of this case to the court of execution

Nevertheless, the lower court made a decision to dismiss an appeal by deeming the above objection as an immediate appeal. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of appeal as to the decision to revoke the enforcement disposition by submitting documents revoking enforcement. The ground of reappeal assigning this error is with merit.

On the other hand, the court below made an additional decision to the effect that the decision to revoke the compulsory auction procedure of this case is justifiable on the ground that the original copy of the decision in lieu of the conciliation of the appellate court against the judgment rendered by the provisional execution sentence constitutes “a certified copy of the protocol or a protocol prepared by a court official, etc., which proves that the judgment to be executed or other judgment was invalidated due to the withdrawal, etc. of a lawsuit,” as stipulated in Article 49 subparag. 5 of the Civil Execution Act, even though there is a part consistent with the judgment of the court of first instance, where conciliation or compromise is established or a decision in lieu of

However, in a case where a conciliation (including a decision in lieu of conciliation) or compromise is established at an appellate court after having obtained a favorable judgment in the court of first instance in the judgment, the effect of the judgment of the court of first instance and the sentence of provisional execution shall be deemed to be null and void only with respect to conciliation or compromise, and the remaining parts shall still be effective (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da35953 delivered on August 18, 192). However, since the judgment of the court of first instance in favor of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive in lieu of conciliation in the court of first instance, since the decision in lieu of conciliation becomes final and conclusive after receiving the judgment of the court of first instance in favor of the court of first instance in the court of first instance in lieu of conciliation, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the sentence of provisional execution to be null and void by the court of first instance in lieu of conciliation, and ultimately, submission of the original judgment in lieu of conciliation conducted at the appellate court in this case cannot be deemed to constitute a ground for cancellation of enforcement.

4. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is transferred to the Seoul Western District Court, a court of execution with jurisdiction, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)