In case where the judgment with a declaration of provisional execution was reversed and remanded by the court of final appeal and the security offered for cancellation of execution is extinguished in order to escape the provisional execution.

If the judgment of the court of final appeal with a declaration of provisional execution is reversed, the judgment with a declaration of provisional execution shall lose its effect, and the security offered for the cancellation of execution to be exempted from provisional execution shall be deemed to have ceased to exist.

Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 201(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Park Jin (Attorney Shin-ok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Yongjin Mining Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Order 62Ra74 dated October 10, 1962

cancellation of the original decision.

The Seoul District Court has revoked the decision of revocation of security made on November 13, 1962 on this case and dismissed the application for revocation of security.

(1) The summary of the Reasons for reappeal of this case is that the two representative directors of the non-party Youngjin Mining Co., Ltd. died on June 20, 1962 and the two are appointed to the representative director before the cancellation of this case. Thus, even if the two are appointed to the representative director at the time of the application for a provisional disposition, the case where the purpose of this case differs, and even if the legal representative at the time of the application for a provisional disposition is different, the case where the plaintiff proves that the other party's security cause of this case is extinguished is not extinguished. The judgment of the principal case or the main case is not the full winning of the applicant, but the decision of the cancellation of security without the peremptory notice to exercise his right within a certain period of time under Article 115 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act. The other party's answer is without merit.

(1) As to the grounds of re-appeal (1)

The case of the application for cancellation of this case is included in the procedure of the case of this case, and even if the other party representative died before the decision of cancellation of security, the case is without merit since the litigation procedure is not interrupted under Articles 216 and 213(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, as long as there is an attorney in the case of the above provisional disposition.

(2) If review is conducted on the grounds of reappeal

This case's decision of provisional disposition is revoked due to the respondent's objection and the application for provisional disposition is clearly dismissed based on the records of this case, and even if this case's decision of this case has been judged as a winning of the applicant (re-appellant), it cannot be said that there is a need for provisional disposition only by the confirmation of winning judgment in the above case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's issue is point out on the condition of concurrent performance with consideration. Thus, it cannot be said that the necessity and legitimacy of provisional disposition can not be proved by a final judgment. Thus, in order to revoke a decision of provisional disposition, the consent or peremptory notice of exercise of right

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below which dismissed an appeal on the ground that the decision of the court of first instance, which did not take the above procedure, was not erroneous on the ground that the decision of the court below was unlawful, and the application for the revocation of this case was returned to the failure to prove the grounds for the extinguishment of security under Article 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags