Cases which recognize only reduction of the amount of deposit for release from provisional attachment because only part of the judgment of the first instance on the merits is not likely to be revoked in the higher court in a case of cancellation of provisional attachment due to change of circumstances.

Cases which recognize only reduction of the amount of deposit for release from provisional attachment because only part of the judgment of the first instance on the merits is not likely to be revoked in the higher court in a case of cancellation of provisional attachment due to change of circumstances.

Articles 702 and 706 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Type Insurance Co., Ltd

1. Of the decision of provisional seizure rendered on June 9, 1984 by the same court, the amount of deposit for release from provisional seizure shall be reduced to 3,800,000 won from 18,302,115 won from among the decision of provisional seizure filed by the same court against the applicant.

2. The applicant's remaining requests are dismissed.

3. Paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

The ruling of provisional seizure of the text entry shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent and a declaration of provisional execution.

The respondent suffered losses of 18,302,115 won from all the respondent, such as embezzlement of the insurance premium received at the above place of business between November 30, 1983 and June 2, 1984, the respondent filed an application for provisional attachment against the applicant for provisional attachment on the real estate in the attached list owned by the applicant, and the same court accepted it on June 9, 1984 with the above amount as KRW 18,302,115, the applicant is the guarantor of the non-applicant 1, and the non-applicant 1, while working as the principal principal place of business of the respondent, and the respondent suffered losses of 18,302,115 won from all the respondent, etc., while working as the principal place of business of the respondent, and according to the entries in the evidence No. 1 (judgment) of the lawsuit, the respondent cannot be acknowledged from the judgment of the court below against the applicant for provisional attachment.

The applicant asserts that the above provisional seizure should be revoked due to changes in circumstances since the above judgment was against the respondent in the above principal case and the above judgment is not likely to be revoked in the higher court, so it is insufficient to recognize that the above provisional seizure should not be revoked at all in the higher court where the first instance court's judgment against the respondent is maintained and there is no possibility that the above provisional seizure will be revoked at all. Rather, the above first instance court's evidence Nos. 1 and Nos. 8 (Personnel Card) which is the judgment of the first instance court, and Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (Report) which are the judgment of the court of first instance, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Report) which are the judgment of the court of first instance which are the judgment of the court of first instance, and evidence Nos. 2 and the testimony of the above witness shall be taken full account of the whole purport of the argument that the above provisional seizure decision is revoked in the upper court's judgment against the applicant in excess of 3,800,000 won, and there is no evidence against this conclusion that the above judgment of 3000 won.

Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is justified only to the extent that the amount of deposit in the provisional seizure is reduced as above. The remaining applications are dismissed as without merit. All of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the applicant and provisional execution is attached. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judge final (Presiding Judge) Park Young-ho