The other party’s objection against a decision ordering the grant of execution clause by citing an objection against a disposition rejecting the grant of execution clause.

An objection by the creditor against a disposition rejecting a grant of execution clause may not be raised directly by the debtor against the decision ordering the grant of execution clause by citing an objection by the creditor against the disposition rejecting the grant of execution clause: Provided, That such objection may be raised only as an objection against the grant of execution clause of

Articles 482 and 484 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 67Ma530 Decided October 13, 1967

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Central District Court Order 7Ra15 Dated September 5, 1977

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

First of all, we judge the legitimacy of the reappeal ex officio.

According to the records, the appellant of the original decision is the plaintiff at the Seoul Civil District Court, and the appellant of the original decision was the plaintiff, and the re-appellant applied for grant of execution clause for the protocol of claim for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration (Seoul Civil District Court 72 Gahap5787, Seoul Civil District Court 72 Gahap577) that became the defendant, but it was not ordered by the presiding judge, and the above order of the above execution court was rejected by rejection of grant of execution clause for the reason that it was not ordered by the above order of execution. However, the appellant filed an appeal against the decision of rejection for the above order of rejection and received the decision of rejection for the above execution clause from the original court, and it was decided for the above chief clerk to grant the above execution clause. The re-appellant is confirmed that the above order of the original decision infringed upon the right as the opposing party of the above decision.

However, with regard to the application for granting the execution clause which requires the order of the presiding judge under Article 482 of the Civil Procedure Act, the creditor's objection against the rejection of the execution clause for the reason that it is impossible to obtain the order, and the decision ordering granting the execution clause for the reason that the chief clerk cannot obtain the order, is a unilateral objection against the creditor and the debtor is not the other party, and the above decision is an order of the above presiding judge that is not only internal supervisory action, and the debtor is not a direct appeal against the above decision. Thus, the debtor can only raise an objection against the above decision, but it is only a dispute as to the rejection of the execution clause of the chief clerk, which is based on the above decision. Thus, the re-appellant cannot file an appeal against the rejection of the above application for granting execution clause against the creditor's appeal against the rejection of the above decision and against the original decision ordering the grant of the execution clause. Thus, the reappeal cannot be dismissed as it is unlawful and dismissed.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)