[1] The execution period of an indirect compulsory execution of a provisional disposition ordering the performance of an incidental act obligation, and the date of its commencement

[2] The case holding that an application for indirect compulsory performance against the decision of provisional injunction for perusal and copying of books, etc. is unlawful on the ground that the execution period expires

[1] The provisions of Article 708(2) of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of a provisional disposition order by indirect compulsory performance by the creditor who received a provisional disposition ordering the performance of the obligation to act in the military unit. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an application for indirect compulsory performance shall be filed within 14 days from the date on which the provisional disposition order was served, and an application for indirect compulsory performance after the expiration of the above execution period shall be deemed unlawful. However, in cases where the obligation to act in the military unit continues for a certain period, if the obligor’s duty to act in the provisional disposition continues for a certain period, the above execution period shall not proceed while it is not necessary for the obligor to faithfully perform the obligation to act, and in light of the obligor’s attitude, it shall be deemed that the execution period of the above 14 days starting from that point when

[2] The case holding that an application for indirect compulsory performance against the decision of provisional injunction for perusal and copying of books, etc. is unlawful as the execution period expires

[1] Articles 693, 708, and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 693, 708, and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 82MaKa50 dated July 16, 1982 (Gong1982, 808)

Union Steel Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other (Applicant) 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Shinyang, Attorneys Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 99Ra186 dated September 6, 1999

The order of the court below shall be reversed and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. All applicants shall be dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In order for a creditor who received a provisional disposition ordering the performance of the obligation to act in the military unit, the provisions of Article 708(2) of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of the decision of provisional disposition by indirect compulsory performance pursuant to the method of indirect compulsory performance pursuant to Article 715 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an application for indirect compulsory performance shall be filed within 14 days from the date on which the decision of provisional disposition was served, and an application for indirect compulsory performance after the expiration of the above execution period shall be deemed unlawful. However, in cases where the obligation to act in the military unit continues for a certain period due to the obligor’s faithful performance of the obligation to act, the above execution period does not proceed as long as it is not necessary for the obligor to apply for compulsory execution by faithfully performing the obligation to act, and the obligor’

According to the records, the Seoul High Court issued a provisional disposition order to allow the applicant or his agent to peruse and copy the books and documents of the judgment for 20 days from February 22, 1999 to February 98Ra185, 199 upon the applicant's request. The applicant served the original copy of the provisional disposition order on March 24, 199, and the applicant visited the Re-Appellant company for inspection and copy of the books and documents specified in the provisional disposition order, but the re-appellant did not request inspection and copy of the remaining books and documents from March 2, 199, and the applicant refused the above indirect compulsory performance order for the execution of the provisional disposition on March 23, 199. Accordingly, the above provisional disposition order should have been executed for a certain period of time until March 2, 199 to order the re-appellant to act for a certain period of time. Thus, the re-appellant's indirect compulsory performance order should have been made within 24 days after the second indirect compulsory execution period. Thus, the applicant's indirect compulsory execution order should be made within 14 days.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the decision of the court of first instance, which was the receipt of an application for indirect compulsory performance, in addition to cancelling only a part of the decision, and there is a violation of the law that affected the trial. The argument in this regard is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted and the remaining grounds for reappeal are reversed, and this court is sufficient to render a judgment by direct correction, and thus, it is decided to do so in accordance with Articles 413(2) and 407 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The motion for indirect compulsory performance of this case is unlawful as seen above, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The order of the court below and the decision of the court of first instance are unfair in conclusion, so each reversal and cancellation shall be dismissed, and all of the applicants shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)