Whether a liquidator's claim to dismiss a liquidator appointed by the court as a preserved right is appropriate for the application for a provisional disposition suspending the execution of his duties (negative)

According to Article 179 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the court's judgment on the appointment of liquidator shall not be subject to any objection. Thus, the application for suspension of execution of liquidator's duties and provisional disposition on appointment of acting liquidator's right to the claim to dismiss the liquidator is unlawful on the premise that

Article 179 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, Articles 542 and 407 of the Commercial Act

Park Tae-An et al.

Busan Traffic Corporation

Daegu High Court Order 80Ra21 dated December 26, 1980

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below held that the applicant's claim for the suspension of the execution of duties of the liquidator of this case and the dismissal of the liquidator who is the right to be preserved by the application for provisional disposition of appointment of the acting liquidator of this case cannot be deemed as an objection to the appointment of the liquidator of the court, and since Article 179 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act provides that the application for provisional disposition in this case, which is based on the premise that such objection is permitted, shall not be filed. Thus, in light of the records, the court below's above determination is just and there is no error of law

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)