Article 485 (Application of Civil Act No. 504)

If Gap jointly and severally guaranteed Eul's debt to Eul, and Byung returned the transferred property for security provided by Eul to Eul, and Eul sold it and consumed the price, it constitutes a case where the so-called creditor's security under this Article has been lost by intention or negligence.

Article 485 of the Civil Act

Profitization

Potable Art Co.

Busan District Court Decision 4293No362 delivered on March 30, 1961

We reverse the original judgment.

The applicant's public prosecution is dismissed.

Costs of litigation and public prosecution shall be borne by the applicant.

The grounds for appeal by the respondent's attorney shall be as stated in the Reasons for Appeal attached to the attached Form.

First of all, it is reasonable to review the second ground for appeal. The court below approved the provisional attachment order on the ground that the non-applicant 1 made a false statement that the non-applicant 1 had a claim to be preserved for execution, despite the fact that the non-applicant 1 had a claim to be preserved for execution, even though the non-applicant 1 sold this and arbitrarily consumed the proceeds, it is proved that the non-applicant 1 had a claim to be preserved for execution, despite the fact that the non-applicant 1 had a claim to be preserved for execution for the non-applicant 1 had a claim to be preserved for execution. However, the court below acknowledged the above facts as above, since the non-applicant 1 had a claim to be preserved for the non-applicant 1, which is the creditor or the non-applicant 1, lost its collateral in the form of collateral transfer from the respondent 1, the non-applicant 1, and thus, the non-applicant 2, who is a joint and several surety, could not be held liable for the non-applicant 1, the non-applicant 2, even if the obligee's claim to be discharged.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that does not require the determination of the remaining grounds for appeal is reversed and this case is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since there is no vindication as to the applicant's preserved claims for provisional seizure.

Justices Yang Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)