According to the records, the court of original judgment (referring to the subsidiary support of the Busan District Court; hereinafter the same shall apply) was rendered against the person other than the applicant for the above execution clause on March 31, 1992 by filing a lawsuit claiming the name of the building with the court of original judgment 89Da8400, which was partially ruled against the defendant on March 31, 1992. The above applicant filed an appeal with the Busan District Court 92Na4168, 93Na1135 (Counterclaim) which ordered the above other party to remove the possession of the above non-applicant's building (hereinafter the part of the building in this case) from among each building on the ground of the Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan High Court 93, which was the special appellate court's order to dismiss the above non-applicant's appeal for the reason that it was impossible for the above non-applicant to occupy the above non-applicant's specific execution clause, but the court of appeal which was the special successor to the execution clause in this case.

However, an objection against the decision on the grant of execution clause cannot be raised as to the execution of Article 504 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since an immediate appeal under Article 517 of the same Act cannot be filed, and no objection procedure is in place, it is interpreted that only special appeal under Article 420 of the same Act can be permitted (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma2132 delivered on May 13, 1995). Even if the parties did not indicate that the objection is special appeal and the appellate court are the Supreme Court, the court which received the written appeal shall treat it as special appeal and send the records of trial to the Supreme Court (see Supreme Court Order 95Ma531 delivered on July 12, 1995, Supreme Court Order 86Ma895 delivered on November 7, 1986, etc.).

In this case, the court below sent records to Busan District Court's appeal department, and the same court's decision eventually leads to a court's decision which is not authorized, so this case shall be treated as a special appeal to the court below (refer to Supreme Court Order 86Ma347 delivered on December 30, 1987).

In light of the records, the Re-Appellant's original judgment is served on August 3, 1996 and the peremptory order was served on August 12, 1996, and the original judgment was served on August 12, 1996, and it is apparent that the Re-Appellant filed the instant special appeal. Thus, this constitutes an unlawful case where the defects cannot be corrected.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who decide to dismiss the special appeal of this case without any further determination on the grounds of the special appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)