[1] The purpose of the security to suspend the compulsory execution against the judgment of the provisional execution sentence

[2] Where the judgment of the first instance court of the provisional execution sentence revoked by an appellate court judgment, but the appellate court judgment is not yet finalized, whether the security for the suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment of the first instance court of the provisional execution sentence can be deemed to have ceased to exist (negative)

[1] The security for the suspension of a provisional execution against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is to secure the creditor's claim for damages incurred by the suspension of compulsory execution.

[2] The declaration of provisional execution attached to the judgment of the court of first instance shall lose its effect within the scope of modification by the judgment of the appellate court that changed the judgment on the merits, but its invalidation shall be a condition subsequent to the conclusion of the changed merits. Accordingly, if the judgment of the court of final appeal that reversed the judgment of the appellate court is rendered, the declaration of provisional execution shall be restored again. The judgment of the appellate court that reversed the judgment of the appellate court shall still remain valid, and there is a possibility that the other party may claim compensation for damages incurred by the suspension of enforcement based on the judgment of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was rendered by the judgment of the court of first instance, while the judgment of the appellate court was not finalized by the judgment of the appellate court, even if the judgment of the court of first instance

[1] Articles 115(1), 473(1), 474, and 475(3) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 115(1), 201, 473(1), 474, and 475(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 87Ka71 delivered on March 29, 198 (Gong198, 824), Supreme Court Order 91Ma718 delivered on January 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1266), Supreme Court Order 98Da24914 delivered on January 14, 200 / [2] Supreme Court Order 63Ma5 delivered on July 25, 1963 (No 11-2, 60), Supreme Court Order 63Ma3 delivered on May 10, 1964 (No 12-1, 63Ma165 delivered on June 25, 1964; Supreme Court Order 93Ma1638 delivered on October 36, 1965; Supreme Court Order 93Ma389 delivered on March 36, 197; Supreme Court Order 197Ma3849 delivered on March 36, 1965).

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Seoul High Court Order 99Ra49 dated March 31, 1999

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Security for the suspension of compulsory execution against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is to secure the obligee’s claim for compensation for damages to be incurred due to the suspension of compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Order 91Ma718, Jan. 31, 1992).

In addition, the declaration of provisional execution attached to the judgment of the court of first instance remains valid within the scope of modification by the judgment of the court of first instance that changed the judgment of the original case, but its invalidation is a condition subsequent to the conclusion of the changed judgment of the original case, and thus, if the judgment of the court of final appeal that reversed the judgment of final appeal, the declaration of provisional execution becomes null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 65Ma826, Oct. 20, 1965; Supreme Court Order 93Ma246, Mar. 29, 1993; Supreme Court Order 93Ma247, Mar. 29, 1993; etc.). While the judgment of the court of final appeal is not final and conclusive, it is still possible to claim damages to the other party due to the suspension of execution by the deadline set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance of provisional execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 63Ma165, Jun. 26, 1964).

Therefore, the Supreme Court Order 63Ra5 dated July 25, 1963, which held that since the judgment of a sentence of provisional execution was cancelled as the judgment of the second instance, even if the case was not yet finalized, the security ground is extinguished, will be modified.

In light of the records of this case in light of such legal principles, the judgment of the court below that the Re-Appellant cannot be deemed to have expired since the judgment of the appellate court that revoked the judgment of the first instance court of the provisional execution sentence was not yet final and conclusive with respect to the security provided by the Re-Appellant for the suspension of provisional execution based on the judgment of the first instance court is just, and there is no illegality in the judgment of the court below, such as violation of the Supreme Court

The grounds for reappeal shall not be accepted.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) is the case where the defendant uses the original judgment of this case, which is the case where he uses the original judgment of this case, which is the case where he uses the original judgment of this case.