Where the appellate court may request the provision of security for the costs of lawsuit.

Article 118 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant 1 and one other (Attorney Nam-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent (Attorney Kim Si-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

All applications filed by applicants are dismissed.

According to Article 118 of the Civil Procedure Act, even though the defendant was aware that there was a reason to provide security, he did not apply for the provision of security if the defendant testified on the merits or stated in the preparatory date for pleading. Thus, even though the cause of the provision of security has already occurred in the first instance court or the appellate court, he could not apply for the provision of security without fault, or only if the cause of new provision has occurred in the appellate court.

The data submitted by the applicant alone is insufficient to recognize that the applicant was unable to apply for the provision of security without negligence, or that a new cause of provision of security has occurred in the trial of the first instance or the appellate court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, all of the applicants' applications in this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)