Where a decision on provisional disposal of a ship is not executed and the security grounds under Article 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Act are extinguished;

Even in cases where the provisional disposition order has not been executed and the execution period has expired, the existence of the provisional disposition order alone could inflict mental damage on the respondent even, and the scope of the respondent's damages guaranteed by the guarantee deposit is also the costs of lawsuit necessary to dispute the provisional disposition order itself. Therefore, the security ground is not extinguished unless there are special circumstances.

Article 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 67Ka53 delivered on September 15, 1967

The original decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The Re-Appellant's grounds of reappeal are examined as follows: according to the whole purport of the pleading, the other party's possession of the ship as the respondent and the other party's custody of the ship's possession is deposited as a guarantee in making a provisional disposition upon the request of the vessel's provisional disposition order, and the provisional disposition order has not been executed. Therefore, the original decision decided that the security of the deposit was extinguished.

However, in the case of this case, even if the provisional disposition order is not executed and the execution period has expired, the existence of the provisional disposition order alone could cause mental damage to the re-appellant who is the respondent, and the lawsuit costs necessary to dispute the provisional disposition order itself within the scope of the re-appellant's compensation, which is the respondent who guaranteed this guarantee deposit, are also incurred. Therefore, the security under Article 115 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances, should be determined that the security cause under Article 115 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act has not yet been extinguished, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the extinction of security cause under Article 115 (1) of the above, which is the ground for re-appeal, and the original decision shall not be reversed.

Therefore, according to Articles 413 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.