[담보취소결정에대한재항고][공1974.8.1.(493),7929]
Whether a cause for security ceases to exist where a person holding a right to the security has satisfied with any other property not secured by the person liable for security.
With respect to the security furnished to be exempted from provisional execution, if the secured person has already exercised his/her right and executed a compulsory execution on other property than the security of the secured person and obtained the satisfaction, the reason for the security ceases to exist.
Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Act
Re-appellant
Seoul High Court Order 73Ra81,82 dated January 10, 1974
The reappeal is dismissed.
The re-appellant's grounds for re-appeal are examined.
According to the records, this case's security (this case's security deposited by the defendant against the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in favor of the court of provisional execution as to the provisional execution order as to the non-party's case's claim for housing name order between Seoul Civil and Civil District Court 69Da13663, the re-appellant, and the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's case's security right holder) can be seen as acquiring a title of debt (Seoul High Court 72Na21 case's claim for damages) by already exercising the right in this case's security right, and enforce compulsory execution and obtain satisfaction (refer to the records's Chapters 45 to 48 and 50, Seoul Civil and Civil Court 73ta2923,2924 claims seizure and assignment order, and it is reasonable to view that this case's security ground becomes extinct. Accordingly, the measures of the court below maintaining the decision of revocation of the first instance court's security
The reappeal is dismissed for lack of merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)