[1] The execution period of an indirect compulsory execution of a provisional disposition ordering the performance of an incidental act obligation, and the date of its commencement

[2] The case holding that an application for indirect compulsory performance against the decision of provisional injunction for perusal and copying of books, etc. is unlawful on the ground that the execution period expires

[1] Article 715(2) of the Civil Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis to the execution of a provisional disposition order by indirect compulsory performance by a creditor who received a provisional disposition ordering the performance of an obligation to act in the military unit. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an application for indirect compulsory performance should be filed within 14 days from the date of delivery of the provisional disposition order, and an application for indirect compulsory performance after the execution period is unlawful. However, in cases where the obligation to act in the military unit ordered in the provisional disposition continues for a certain period, if the obligor’s obligation to act in the military unit continues for a certain period, the above execution period does not proceed as long as it is not necessary for the obligor to faithfully perform the obligation to act, and if it is deemed that indirect compulsory performance is necessary due to the obligor’s failure to act in light of the obligor’s attitude, the execution period shall be calculated from that point of

[2] The case holding that an application for indirect compulsory performance against the decision of provisional injunction for perusal and copying of books, etc. is unlawful as the execution period expires

[1] Articles 693, 708, and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 693, 708, and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 82MaKa50 dated July 16, 1982 (Gong1982, 808)

Union Steel Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other (Applicant) 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Shinyang, Attorneys Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 99Ra186 dated September 6, 1999

The order of the court below shall be reversed and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. All applicants shall be dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 715 of the Civil Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis to the execution of a provisional disposition order by indirect compulsory performance by a creditor subject to a provisional disposition ordering the performance of an obligation to act in the military unit. Thus, in principle, an application for indirect compulsory performance shall be filed within 14 days from the date on which the provisional disposition order was served, barring any special circumstance, and an application for indirect compulsory performance after the expiration of the execution period shall be deemed unlawful. However, in cases where the obligation to act in the military unit continues for a certain period, if the obligor’s duty to act in the provisional disposition continues for a certain period, the above execution period shall not proceed while it is not necessary for the obligor to faithfully perform the obligation to act, and if it is acknowledged that indirect compulsory performance is necessary due to the obligor’s failure to act in light of the obligor’s attitude, the execution period of 14 days thereafter shall be calculated.

According to the records, the Seoul High Court issued a provisional disposition order to allow the applicant or his agent to peruse and copy the books and documents of the judgment for 20 days from February 22, 1999 to February 98Ra185, 199 upon the applicant's request. The applicant served the original copy of the provisional disposition order on March 24, 199, and the applicant visited the Re-Appellant company for inspection and copy of the books and documents specified in the provisional disposition order, but the re-appellant did not request inspection and copy of the remaining books and documents from March 2, 199, and the applicant refused the above indirect compulsory performance order for the execution of the provisional disposition on March 23, 199. Accordingly, the above provisional disposition order should have been executed for a certain period of time until March 2, 199 to order the re-appellant to act for a certain period of time. Thus, the re-appellant's indirect compulsory performance order should have been made within 24 days after the second indirect compulsory execution period. Thus, the applicant's indirect compulsory execution order should be made within 14 days.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the decision of the court of first instance, which was the receipt of an application for indirect compulsory performance, in addition to cancelling only a part of the decision, and there is a violation of the law that affected the trial. The argument in this regard is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted and the remaining grounds for reappeal are reversed, and this court is sufficient to render a judgment by direct correction, and therefore, it is decided to do so in accordance with Articles 413(2) and 407 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The motion for indirect compulsory performance of this case is unlawful as seen above, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The order of the court below and the decision of the court of first instance are unfair in conclusion, so each reversal and cancellation shall be dismissed, and all of the applicants shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)