logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1967. 4. 19.자 67마154 결정
[담보취소결정에대한재항고][집15(1)민,333]
Main Issues

Cases where it is impossible to execute a provisional seizure because there is no claim to be the object of execution of provisional seizure, or extinction of the cause of security

Summary of Judgment

It cannot be said that the reason for the security was extinguished because the claim subject to provisional seizure did not exist and became impossible to execute it.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 700(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-Appellant, Respondent

Re-appellant

Other party, applicant,

Respondent

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Order 67Ka22 delivered on February 3, 1967

Text

I reverse the original decision.

The request for cancellation of this case shall be dismissed.

Reasons

The Re-Appellant's ground for reappeal is examined.

The Respondent deposited KRW 500,00,00 in money as security for the provisional seizure against the Republic of Korea, which the Respondent had against the Respondent as a creditor (No. 8217, 1966, No. 8217, No. 3000,000) and the Respondent deposited KRW 500,000,00 as the amount of damage security before the provisional seizure was served on the Respondent, and the Claimant transferred the seized claims to a third party before the decision of provisional seizure was served on the Claimant, and thus the Claimant's security is not extinguished, and the court below allowed the Claimant's request for cancellation of provisional seizure. However, the Respondent's request for cancellation of provisional seizure cannot be deemed to have been extinguished merely because the Respondent's claim for provisional seizure was not for the purpose of execution of provisional seizure, but for the above security to guarantee the honor, credit and other intangible losses that the obligor may sustain due to the execution. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Claimant still has any ground for the security.

Therefore, the original decision shall be reversed, and the application for cancellation of security shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1967.2.3.선고 67카22