Even if the public prosecutor's order executing additional collection, which is a kind of property type, can bring the same effect as the name of debt, it cannot be seen that the right is protected by the civil procedure, so it is difficult to regard it as a preserved right that can be preserved by the provisional attachment order.

Even though the public prosecutor's order to execute the collection, which is a kind of property type, has the same effect as the name of the debt, it cannot be viewed that the right is protected by the civil procedure, so it is difficult to regard the provisional seizure order as the preserved right.

Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 696 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1347 delivered on November 11, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1347 delivered on November 11, 1970

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the ground of appeal by the applicant’s attorney:

According to the records, it is evident that the right to be preserved of the provisional seizure order is related to the execution of the property type of the equivalent value imposed in the criminal judgment. It is reasonable to interpret the so-called provisional seizure under the Civil Procedure Act as the legal principle that the right to be preserved shall be the right to be protected in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Civil Procedure Act. Even though there is a criminal judgment where the collection of the equivalent value is imposed or the prosecutor's order to execute it can bring the same effect as the name of the obligation, even though it cannot be viewed as the right to be preserved in the provisional seizure order because it cannot be viewed as the right to be preserved in the provisional seizure order because it cannot be seen as the right to be preserved in the provisional seizure order because the first and second judgments were the same as the right to be protected in the Civil Procedure Act, the applicant for the pleadings does not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to be preserved in the original judgment as to the right to be preserved, and it is not sufficient to discuss whether the original judgment does not have any right to be preserved in the criminal trial or not.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet