Whether the cancellation of provisional disposition for which the termination date of entry into force has expired and whether the appeal benefits

Where the completion period of provisional disposition is up to the time of rendering a judgment in the first instance, there is no benefit to appeal seeking the revocation of a provisional disposition, unless there is any special circumstance to deem that any legal interest has been infringed by the appearance of the provisional disposition, since the court of first instance has lost its executive power at the same time with the declaration of the result, regardless of what is the result of the judgment.

Article 360 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and six others

Busan District Court (85Ka811)

All appeals by the respondent shall be dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The provisional disposition order issued on December 26, 1984 by the same court shall be approved by the Busan District Court (Case Number omitted) between the applicant and the respondent with respect to the provisional disposition such as the suspension of the execution of directors' duties.

Litigation costs are assessed against the respondent.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The provisional disposition decision as stated in paragraph (1) shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the applicant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution.

The applicant shall file an application with the respondent for provisional disposition such as suspending the exercise of director's duties with the Busan District Court (Case No. 1 omitted). On December 26, 1984, the same court accepted the application by the same court on December 26, 1984, and the respondent's performance of duties as a director and representative director of the above corporation of the respondent, the respondent's performance of duties as a director and representative director of the above corporation of the above corporation of the respondent 2, 3, 4, and 5 until the court of first instance rendered a decision to nullify the decision to nullify the appointment of director of the court (Case No. 1 omitted) as of the non-applicant foundation of the defendant, the respondent's performance of duties as a director of the above corporation of the above corporation of the respondent, the respondent's U.S., and the head office of the above provisional disposition of the above court (Case No. 1 omitted), and all facts of the judgment of the first instance on July 16, 1986 are significant.

On the other hand, the provisional disposition of this case is the completion date of its entry into force until the judgment of the first instance court of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the appointment of director at Busan District Court (case number omitted), which is the main subject of the provisional disposition, and after the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, the respondent has lost its executive power at the same time as the judgment of the first instance court, so the respondent shall not be subject to any further prohibition of the performance of duties as a director. Thus, even if the above provisional disposition does not have executive power, the respondent does not have any legal interest to seek revocation of the provisional disposition of this case without any executory power, and therefore the respondent's appeal of this case seeking such revocation is dismissed in its entirety without any need to enter into the judgment of the main case, since the appeal of this case is an illegal appeal with no executory power, and the burden of litigation costs is subject to the application of Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Ansan-sung (Presiding Judge)