(a) Validity of the judgment on temporary suspension of compulsory execution;

(b) Whether the dismissal decision of a request for temporary suspension of compulsory execution should also be notified to the other party.

A. Even in a case where a trial on the temporary suspension of compulsory execution under Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act becomes final and conclusive merely as a provisional disposition, res judicata does not take place. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit a person who has filed a request again or received a decision to suspend part of the application from filing a request again by supplementing arguments and vindications, or by explaining a change in circumstances thereafter, from filing an application for a decision different from the scope thereof. In such a case, the court may make a new decision of suspension according to the process of hearing regardless of whether the higher court or the court of the same instance

B. The case of applying for a temporary suspension of compulsory execution does not have the structure of subrogation of the parties in a strict form, such as the judgment procedure, and thus, the decision of dismissal becomes final and conclusive upon notification to the applicant, and it does not necessarily require notification to the other party who does not suffer any disadvantage, and the confirmation is not always interrupted after special appeal was filed.

(a)Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act;

Attorney Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 1987.24 December 24, 1987, 87Ka58730

The special appeal is dismissed.

The grounds for special appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Even in a case where a trial on the temporary suspension of compulsory execution under Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act becomes final and conclusive merely because it is a provisional one, the res judicata does not take place, so there is no reason to prohibit the applicant who has rejected the request once again, or the person who has received the decision to suspend part of the case, from claiming a change of situation after it was found that there is no reason to prohibit the applicant from applying for a decision different from the scope by claiming a change of situation, and in this case, the court may make a new decision to suspend the case according to the trial process regardless of whether the higher

According to the records of this case, the order of the court below of this case did not err in the violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit or in the violation of the res judicata Act by the decision of the court below on the case of the application for the suspension of compulsory execution filed with the supplement of the new arguments and explanatory materials as to the necessity of suspension of execution, in addition to the argument and vindication at the time of the application for the suspension of the first compulsory execution against which

With respect to the second ground:

The case of applying for a temporary suspension of compulsory execution does not have the structure of the opposite party in a strict form, such as the judgment procedure, so if the decision of dismissal becomes final and conclusive upon notification to the applicant, and it does not necessarily require notification to the other party who does not suffer any disadvantage, and the confirmation does not necessarily mean that the special appeal has been filed and the confirmation is not interrupted.

According to the records of this case, the decision of dismissal of the above application for the suspension of compulsory execution of the first time is already finalized prior to the order of this case because the original copy of the decision was delivered to the applicant's representative on December 21, 1987. In addition, since the application of this case was withdrawn after the decision of dismissal of the first application and re-application was not re-applications after the first application was rejected, it is without any need to discuss that the order of the court below violated Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the prohibition of lawsuit after the withdrawal of the lawsuit, Article 240 (2) of the same Act.

With respect to the third point:

The issue is that the order of the court below's act of destroying the justice, fair and legal stability, which is the life of the private law, is unfair against the judicial justice's conduct, but this is not based on the violation of the Constitution or the law that affected the judgment, which is a special ground, and therefore, it does not constitute a legitimate special ground for appeal. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)