Article 201(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the payment due to a declaration of provisional execution" and the real estate which is knocked by provisional execution.

The payment due to a declaration of provisional execution refers only to a building that the defendant fulfilled to the plaintiff as a result of provisional execution, and it does not include a light building by provisional execution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is a light-sick real estate itself.

Article 201(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Daegu City

Maximum permanent records

Daegu District Court Decision 65Na28, 29 decided May 27, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine part of the Plaintiff’s agent’s Grounds of Appeal

Article 201(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the payment due to a provisional execution" refers only to the goods the defendant performed by the plaintiff as a result of provisional execution, and it does not purport to include the goods which have been adjudicated by provisional execution. According to the records, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for compensation for damages, and obtained a favorable judgment against the defendant in the first instance court to a provisional execution against KRW 2,5,333,00,00, and enforced compulsory execution against the real estate which was owned by the defendant, and the plaintiff's new purchaser acquired the ownership of the above real estate. Accordingly, if the above provisional execution procedure is terminated, it cannot be said that the payment due to the above provisional execution is a money itself paid by the defendant as the result of the above execution, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff is the real estate itself which was the successful bidder. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to restitution of the real estate, which is a final and conclusive judgment of the court of first instance, and remanded to the plaintiff.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.