Guarantee or deposit for the suspension of compulsory execution, and security for basic claims for compulsory execution;

With respect to the guarantee deposit for the suspension of compulsory execution, only the same right as the pledgee exists with respect to the claim for damages due to the suspension of compulsory execution, and it does not have the effect on the basic claim for compulsory execution.

Articles 473 and 474 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 63Ra7 Dated August 21, 1963 (Article 474(9)837 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 10-283 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Kit Industry Corporation

Korea

Nowon-gu et al.

Seoul Central District Court (88 Gohap12085) in the first instance trial

The part of the first instance judgment against the defendant shall be revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay 12,500,000 won to the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.

Judgment like the Disposition

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention

The plaintiff asserted that his application for intervention was unlawful since there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case by the defendant joining the defendant. However, the defendant's application for intervention was made by being seized and received in whole the same claim, which is the object of execution prior to the seizure and collection order delivery of the plaintiff's assertion, and such reason affects the validity of the seizure and collection order of this case, and is a third party who has an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit. Thus, the application for intervention in the above labor union intervention is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

2. Judgment on the merits

According to the whole purport of evidence No. 2-1 (judgment No. 15-2, No. 15-2, No. 2-2, No. 15-3 (Evidence of Confirmation), No. 1-3, No. 4 (Deposit Order), and No. 15-1 (Judgment), the plaintiff filed a claim suit against Hongwon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party Hongwon) 2-1 (the non-party Hongwon), and filed a claim suit against the non-party 2-1 (the non-party Hongwon), and filed a claim suit against the non-party 1-2, No. 80-3, No. 97, Dec. 11, 1986, with the non-party 1-2, and the non-party 1-2, the non-party 1-2, and the non-party 8-3, the non-party 9-2, the non-party 7, the non-party 9-2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 9-3.

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. The plaintiff suffered damages of 12,50,00 won from December 31, 1986 to April 30, 1987, which is an amount equivalent to the above order of suspension of compulsory execution. The plaintiff was sent to the defendant, who is the third party debtor on September 26, 1987, a collection order for the above deposit 87,1458, 1459, which was issued to the defendant on September 28, 198, and the provisional execution order for the above deposit 9, which was issued to the non-party 1. The plaintiff's right to request the above deposit 12,50,000 won under the above collection order was delivered to the non-party 1. The plaintiff and the defendant's allegation that the above order of suspension of compulsory execution against the non-party 2 had the same right as the pledgee's right to claim damages against the above deposit 97, the plaintiff's right to claim for compulsory execution against the plaintiff 17, as the above order of suspension of execution.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for collection based on the premise that the above seizure and collection order is valid is without merit, and thus, it shall be dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto is dismissed, and the total costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Go Jin (Presiding Judge)