[1] The case where the execution based on the provisional disposition judgment may be exceptionally suspended

[2] Requirements for the company to refuse the request for inspection of shareholders' list or creditors' list

[1] The case holding that the execution may be suspended as temporary emergency measures for the debtor in accordance with Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act, in exceptional cases where there is a filing of an appeal against the decision of provisional disposition or the decision of provisional disposition, and the possibility of revocation or alteration in the judgment of provisional disposition is anticipated, in principle, even if the execution is not allowed, but the specific contents of provisional disposition are not limited to the scope of preservation of rights, and it is expected that the contents of the rights or legal relations, which are the subject matter of the lawsuit, are fulfilled, and there is a possibility that the debtor may cause irreparable damages due to its execution (the case holding that allowing the creditor to peruse and copy account books, etc. is the same as allowing the creditor to obtain a final satisfaction such as the performance of the right to claim for inspection and copy, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, and therefore it is likely to cause irreparable damages to the debtor)

[2] A claim for inspection of a shareholder registry, etc. by a shareholder or creditor of a company under Article 396(2) of the Commercial Act may be refused if the company claims or proves that the purpose of the claim is not legitimate.

[1] Articles 473, 474, and 714 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 396 (2) of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 95Da2 dated March 6, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1696) Supreme Court Order 96Da5 dated April 24, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1581)

Geum-ju Co., Ltd. and three others (Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul District Court Order 97Kaga131 dated January 29, 1997

All special appeals are dismissed.

The special grounds of appeal shall be examined together.

Even in cases where there is a filing of an appeal against the decision of provisional disposition or a final appeal against the decision of provisional disposition, and it is anticipated that the judgment of provisional disposition will be revoked or altered in the future, in principle, its execution shall not be permitted. However, in cases where the specific contents of provisional disposition are not limited to the scope of preservation of rights, but require the final satisfaction of the same rights or legal relations as those performed, which are the subject matter of lawsuit, and where there is a concern for causing irreparable damages to the debtor due to its execution, it is necessary to exceptionally open the way to suspend its execution as a temporary emergency measure for the debtor by applying Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Da2, Mar. 6, 1995; Supreme Court Order 96Da5, Apr. 24, 1996).

However, the Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's 96Kahap4181 decision on the disposal of the original account books, documents, etc. by order that the special appellant (creditor) allow the obligor to peruse and copy the account books, etc. It is clear that the content itself is likely to cause irreparable damage to the obligor by its execution.

In addition, the request for inspection and copying of the shareholders' list or creditors' list under Article 396 (2) of the Commercial Code may be refused if the company claims or proves that the purpose of the request is not legitimate.

In light of the records, the court below's order to suspend the execution based on the above provisional disposition's original copy until the court of first instance rendered a judgment on the objection against the above provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's objection against the above provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's objection against the above provisional disposition's provisional disposition's provisional disposition's objection against the above provisional disposition's judgment

The Supreme Court Order 90Da33 dated September 21, 1990 cited by special Appellants is different from this case, and thus, it does not constitute an appropriate precedent in this case.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)