Whether a person who has succeeded to the status of a person who has received an order of seizure and a whole order for the right to claim the recovery of a security by a person who provided security has an interest in dissatisfactioning with a complaint or reappeal (negative)

A decision to revoke a security is merely for a person who provides a security to state his/her status or status to recover the security, and does not specify the ownership of the security. Thus, it cannot be said that there is interest or need for a person who provides a security to appeal against the decision to revoke a security through a complaint or reappeal. This is the same as in the case of a general successor to the security or a specific successor to the right to recover the security. Thus, a person who succeeds the status of a person who provides a security upon obtaining a seizure or an order to collect the security from the person who provides a security upon receiving a seizure or an order to collect the

Articles 125, 439, 442, 500, 501, and 502(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1438 Decided February 29, 2008 Supreme Court Order 2010Ma288 Decided June 18, 2010

C&PP Co., Ltd.

C&C Co., Ltd.

Daegu District Court Order 2010Ra7 dated August 5, 2010

The order of the court below is reversed. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

ex officio deemed.

A decision to revoke a security is merely for a person who provides a security to state his/her status or status to recover the security, and does not specify the ownership of the security. Thus, it cannot be said that there is interest or need for a person who provides a security to appeal against the decision to revoke a security through a complaint or reappeal (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1438, Feb. 29, 2008). This applies to the case of a general successor or a specific successor concerning the right to claim recovery of the security (see Supreme Court Order 2010Ma288, Jun. 18, 2010). Thus, a person holding a right to the security who succeeds the status of a person who provides a security upon receiving a seizure and a complete order for the right to claim recovery of the security by the person providing a security cannot be said to have benefit or need to appeal against the decision to revoke a

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and records, the Re-appellant was dismissed for the reason that he filed a lawsuit against the Daegu District Court 2008 K/C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "re-appellant"), and won of provisional execution order was rendered. The surety filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with Daegu District Court 208 K/C branch 208 K/C branch 200 million won, and deposited KRW 100 million according to the above order of the court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's order was revoked. The Re-Appellant was dismissed for the reason that the plaintiff did not exercise its rights until 308 K/C branch 209 K/C branch 208 K/C branch 208 K/C branch 208 K/C branch 33333,3333 and 4814 of the above judgment's first instance court's second instance court's judgment's order.

In light of the above legal principles, the Re-Appellant, in light of the above legal principles, succeeded to the status of the person who provided security upon the order of seizure and assignment of the person who provided security. Thus, the appeal of this case filed by the Re-Appellant is unlawful, and thus, the appeal of this case should be dismissed. Thus, the court below's decision that held that the appeal of this case filed by the Re-Appellant is legitimate, even though it should be dismissed, cannot be maintained without examining the grounds for reappeal.

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the Supreme Court shall directly decide on the appeal for the above reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)