Applicant

Respondent 1 and 3 others (Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Order 2010Ma48 dated April 5, 2010

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. In the Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Kahap84 and the provisional disposition suspending the validity of the board of directors’ meeting against the respondent, the applicant received a provisional disposition against Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, 3, and Nonparty 4, respectively, who appointed Nonparty 1 as the representative director and the director acting for the respondent, as the director acting for the director, and Nonparty 2, 3 as the auditor acting for the director, and Nonparty 4 as the auditor acting for the above representative director and the auditor acting for the director. The remuneration for the director acting for the director and the auditor shall be KRW 00,000,000 per month.”

B. On January 16, 2009, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Gahap3759, which was the main case of the above provisional disposition case, sentenced to the dismissal of the non-party 5, 6, 7, and the non-party 8 at the regular general shareholders meeting of March 19, 2008, respectively, and the appointment of the non-party 1, 2, 3, and the non-party 4 as the non-party 1, the non-party 1 who was the defendant joining the defendant, appealed to the Daejeon High Court 2009Na1434, but the appeal was dismissed on June 19, 209, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2009.

C. The applicant paid 20 million won to the Daejeon District Court for the remuneration of the acting person. Nonparty 1, etc. appointed as acting person according to the above provisional disposition decision, etc. filed a claim for the total remuneration of 20 million won, and the Daejeon District Court ordered the withdrawal.

D. Since then, the applicant filed an application with the Daejeon District Court for the determination of the amount of enforcement cost under the Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Ma148, and on March 24, 2010, the judicial assistant officers of the court of first instance decided on March 24, 2010 that the Respondent is KRW 5,033,555 (=20,134,220 x 1/4) each, the amount of enforcement cost that the Respondent has to reimburse to the applicant.

E. The respondent rendered a decision to authorize the above decision on April 5, 2010, when the respondent’s immediate appeal against the above decision was defective, and the court of first instance rendered a decision to authorize the above decision.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

The respondent argues that it is unfair that the Respondent's acting representative has included 20 million won in the remuneration of the acting representative when calculating the cost of execution to be repaid by the Respondent, although the remuneration should be borne by the above company as a matter of principle.

B. Determination

Therefore, the remuneration to be paid to the acting representative in a provisional disposition that appoints the acting representative of the health department and the officer, etc. falls under the execution cost stipulated in Article 53 of the Civil Execution Act and can be executed against the provisional disposition debtor if the creditor won in favor of the creditor in this case. Thus, the expenses for appointment of the acting representative, which the applicant seeks, shall be reimbursed in accordance with the procedure for the judgment on the cost of execution and the confirmation of the cost of execution. The 20 million won paid in advance by the applicant as the remuneration to the acting representative, and the fact that the applicant received a favorable judgment in this case is seen as seen earlier, so the above remuneration paid to the acting representative shall be included in the execution cost to be borne by the respondent, which is the provisional disposition debtor, and thus, the respondent'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is just in its conclusion, and the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-hoon (Presiding Justice)