부동산소유권말소 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The following facts are apparent in the records or are significant to this court:
On February 28, 2017, pursuant to Article 117(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court of the first instance ordered the Plaintiff to “deposit KRW 5 million within 10 days from the date of receiving the notice of this order as security for the costs of lawsuit” pursuant to Article 117(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
(hereinafter “instant decision”). (b)
On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an immediate appeal with the Changwon District Court 2017Ra77 on March 7, 2017, but the said court dismissed the appeal on May 24, 2017, and the said decision became final and conclusive on June 6, 2017.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not provide a security according to the instant decision as well as the period of providing a security under the instant decision until the date of the first instance judgment.
C. Accordingly, the court of first instance rejected the lawsuit for retrial of this case without holding any pleadings pursuant to the main sentence of Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, but still does not provide a security under the decision of this case until now.
2. Where it is deemed necessary to offer security for the costs of lawsuit, such as when a claim based on the written complaint for judgment, briefs and other records of trial is clearly groundless, the court may order the plaintiff to offer security for the costs of lawsuit ex officio (Article 117(2) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and where the plaintiff fails to offer such security within the period for providing the security, the court may dismiss the lawsuit by its judgment
(The main text of Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, the plaintiff did not provide a security pursuant to the decision of this case until the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance as well as the date of declaration
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground of this, is justifiable and without merit, and in light of the legislative intent of the main text of Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act.