[2] In a case where a debtor's immediate appeal is not allowed due to an objection against the decision of provisional disposition and only an objection is allowed, whether the title of the document submitted by the debtor against the decision of provisional disposition is "a letter of immediate appeal" and whether the document submitted by the debtor should be deemed an objection

[2] Where a debtor's immediate appeal is not allowed due to an objection against the decision of provisional disposition and only an objection is allowed, the title of the document submitted by the debtor against the decision of provisional disposition is "Immediate appeal", and even if the end of the appeal contains the name of the appellate court,

A lawsuit that contests the validity of a resolution of the general meeting of an association on a management and disposal plan against a housing reconstruction and improvement project association, which is an administrative subject under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), is related to legal relations under public law that directly affects the illegality of administrative disposition according to the result of the lawsuit, and thus constitutes a party lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da2428, Sept. 17, 2009). In addition, with respect to such party lawsuit, the provisions concerning the suspension of execution under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act are not applied mutatis mutandis (see, e.g., Article 44(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act), and with respect to a provisional disposition, the provisions concerning the provisional disposition under the Civil Execution Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article

On the other hand, the debtor is not entitled to appeal or objection against the decision rejecting the application for provisional disposition (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1377, Oct. 24, 2008). The decision accepting the application for provisional disposition can only file an objection with the court which made the decision of provisional disposition under Articles 283 and 301 of the Civil Execution Act, and it cannot be asserted as an immediate appeal under the Civil Procedure Act or the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma573, May 13, 2008, etc.). If the debtor's immediate appeal is allowed only without permission due to the objection against the decision of provisional disposition, the title of the document submitted by the debtor against the decision of provisional disposition is "Immediate appeal" and even if the end of the decision contains the name of the appellate court, it shall be treated as an objection (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma3754, Mar. 17, 200).

According to the records, on October 14, 2014, some of the respondent's members filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the general assembly resolution on the amendment of the management and disposition plan (hereinafter "general assembly resolution of this case") made on August 10, 2014 by the respondent against the respondent who is a housing reconstruction and improvement project partnership under the Urban Improvement Act, Incheon District Court 2014Guhap2786, and the respondent filed an application of this case seeking to suspend the validity of the general assembly resolution of this case as a preservative measure until the judgment on the merits lawsuit becomes final and conclusive. On February 5, 2015, Incheon District Court rendered a provisional disposition order (hereinafter "provisional disposition order of this case") stating that "the validity of the general assembly resolution of this case is suspended until the Incheon District Court 2014Guhap2786 decided on the management and disposition plan of this case is final and conclusive, and the supplementary intervenor and the respondent who filed an immediate appeal of this case shall be deemed as the supplementary intervenor who submitted the appeal of this case to the court below and the Incheon District Court below.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the principal lawsuit in this case constitutes a party lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act against the respondent who is a maintenance and improvement project association under the Urban Improvement Act, and thus, the provisions on provisional disposition under the Civil Execution Act, not the provisions on suspension of execution under the Administrative Litigation Act, but the provisions on provisional disposition under the Civil Execution Act, shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case, which is a preservative lawsuit, the principal lawsuit of which is a preservation project association, and which is a preservative lawsuit. Furthermore, in regard to the provisional disposition decision of this case where the respondent who is the debtor, is dissatisfied with the provisional disposition decision of this case, the objection is allowed only and the immediate appeal is not allowed. Thus, even if the title of the document submitted by the supplementary intervenor and the re-appellant is indicated as the “Immediate appeal sheet” and the end of this, it should have

Nevertheless, the measures taken by the Incheon District Court to send the remaining records that mistaken the supplementary intervenor and the supplementary intervenor and the supplementary intervenor as an immediate appeal to the court of original judgment, and the court of original judgment received them should have again sent the records that they had jurisdiction over the case of objection to the Incheon District Court so that the propriety of the application for provisional disposition should be deliberated and determined. The court below's decision to dismiss the appeal by deeming the supplementary intervenor and the supplementary intervenor as an immediate appeal by the supplementary intervenor as the supplementary intervenor and the supplementary intervenor as an immediate appeal is erroneous in the violation of the provisions

Meanwhile, according to Articles 22(4) and 27 of the Urban Improvement Act, and Article 64 of the Civil Act, the respondent does not have the right to represent the respondent in relation to all the applicants. Thus, even if Nonparty 23 submitted a reappeal on behalf of the respondent on behalf of the respondent, it shall be pointed out that the withdrawal of the reappeal is invalid.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is transferred to the Panel Division of the Incheon District Court at the jurisdiction. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)