Whether it is possible to independently object to an order to provide security prior to a decision to suspend compulsory execution (negative)

If the court of the lawsuit has issued an order to suspend compulsory execution under Article 507(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, such order to provide security corresponds to an intermediate judgment against a judgment that subsequently suspends compulsory execution. Even if the amount of deposit under the above order is too excessive and unfair, it can only be contested against the legitimacy of the order in the appeal procedure against the judgment of the suspension of compulsory execution, and it is not possible to independently appeal the order to provide security corresponding to the intermediate judgment.

Articles 420, 473, and 507(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 65Ma99 dated March 24, 1965 (Gong2000Ha, 2171) 200Da14 dated September 6, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2171)

The Korean Association of Germany established under the Korean Association of Germany established under the Korean Association of Germany (Attorney Lee Dong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Order 2001Kala9850 dated July 12, 2001

The special appeal shall be dismissed.

As to the decision of the suspension of compulsory execution under Article 507 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, an appeal against such decision cannot be filed by analogy of Article 473 (3) of the same Act, the appeal against such decision shall be deemed a special appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 81Ma292, Aug. 21, 1981; Supreme Court Order 2001Ma4, Feb. 28, 2001). Although the object of the appeal in this case is against an order to provide security prior to the suspension of compulsory execution, it cannot be deemed as an ordinary appeal or an immediate appeal separately from the decision of the suspension of compulsory execution. Thus, if the court below considers the appeal in this case as a special appeal and sent the record to a party member, the party member shall be deemed to be a special appeal and judged.

If the court of the lawsuit has issued an order to deposit a certain security with the special appellant in order to order the suspension of compulsory execution under Article 507(2) of the Civil Procedure Act upon the request of the special appellant, such order to provide security constitutes an intermediate judgment against the judgment suspending compulsory execution last time. Even if the deposit amount is too excessive as alleged by the special appellant, it can only be contested against the legitimacy in the appeal procedure against the judgment suspending compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Order 200Da14, Sept. 6, 200). Thus, the special appeal of this case is unlawful as it is against the judgment that cannot be subject to a special appeal, and it is unlawful.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)