The extent that the security deposited to suspend the compulsory execution against the judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is not effective.

Security deposited to suspend compulsory execution against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is to secure damages that may arise to a creditor due to the suspension of compulsory execution, and the creditor has the same right as the pledgee only for the above claim for damages.

Articles 113 and 475 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 79Ma74 decided Nov. 23, 1979 (Gong1980, 12365)

Re-appellant

Gwangju District Court Order 86Ma122 Dated March 17, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

Security deposited to suspend a compulsory execution against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is to secure a creditor's damage caused by the suspension of compulsory execution, and the creditor does not secure the basic claim itself, which is the object of suspension. Thus, the creditor has the same right as the pledgee only to the above claim for damages (see Supreme Court Order 79Ma74 dated November 23, 1979).

According to the facts and records established by the court below in this case, the re-appellant's order of seizure and assignment order for the above claim for recovery of deposit deposit amount of 4,90,000 won was served on the third debtor on September 25, 1985 by the court of law 85ta1801, 1802 as the above creditor and the third debtor, and the court of law issued the non-party 2's order for seizure and assignment order for the above claim for recovery of deposit deposit amount of 85,190,1908 to the creditor, the depository non-party 1 as the creditor, the depository non-party 1 as the third debtor, and the third debtor as the creditor, and the third debtor of this case was served on the debtor on September 14, 1985. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below's order of seizure and assignment cannot be said to have been justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the creditor's right of seizure and assignment order of deposit amount of this case.

We cannot accept the argument since it is erroneous for the order of the court below in other opinions above.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)