logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1979. 8. 25.자 78마249 결정
[승계집행문부여에대한법원주사의거부처분에대한재항고][공1979.11.1.(619),12188]
Main Issues

Method of appeal against a decision ordering grant of execution clause

Summary of Judgment

Since the decision ordering the granting of execution clause by citing an objection by the creditor against the refusal of granting execution clause by the chief clerk is an unilateral against the creditor and is not against the debtor, the debtor cannot directly file an objection against it, but only objection can be raised against the granting of execution clause by the above decision.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 482 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Order 77Ma348 Decided November 23, 1977

Re-appellant

Appellant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

United States of America

Seoul High Court Order 78Ra26 dated July 22, 1978

Text

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

Reasons

First, the second ground for reappeal is examined.

The decision ordering the grant of execution clause by citing an objection by the creditor against the rejection of the grant of execution clause of the chief chief clerk is an unilateral against the creditor and the debtor is not the other party, so the debtor cannot raise an objection directly against it. However, the above decision of party members pointed out to the purport that the above decision can only be made with respect to the grant of execution clause by the above decision, so the re-appeal of this case is unlawful as it constitutes a case where no objection is raised as stated above, since there is no reason to change the execution clause by a justifiable reason. The decision of party members pointed out to the effect that the re-appeal of this case constitutes a case where there is no objection as stated above. It cannot be said that the decision of the court below

Justices Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)

arrow