Method of rejecting an application for suspending compulsory execution;

According to the provisions of Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act, an appeal may not be filed against the dismissal ruling of a request for the suspension of a compulsory execution against a judgment with a provisional execution declaration. Thus, the special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is only allowed.

Articles 473, 474, and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 80g21 dated July 31, 1981 83g30 dated September 10, 1983

Special Appellants

Busan District Court Order 85Ka28465 delivered on October 18, 1985

The special appeal is dismissed.

The grounds for special appeal are examined.

According to the records, the special appellant filed with the Busan District Court on October 17, 1985 a petition for the suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment of the provisional execution ordering the above court No. 85Da7799 on the same court's 18th of the same month, but it is filed with the same court as Busan District Court on the 24th of the same month. According to the provisions of Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act, the appeal cannot be filed against the decision of dismissal of the application for the suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment with the provisional execution ordering the provisional execution order. Accordingly, the special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is only permitted (see Supreme Court Order 80Da211 on July 31, 1981 and Order 83Da30 on September 10, 1983). The party member who does not specify that the applicant is a special appeal shall be regarded as a special case of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, a special appeal may be made to the Supreme Court only on the ground that there is a violation of the Constitution or laws that affected the trial. Thus, a lawsuit does not constitute a violation of the Constitution or laws in the original judgment of this case itself, and on the merits thereof, the applicant criticizes the original judgment on the ground that there is no monetary payment obligation. Thus, it does not constitute a legitimate special appeal.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)