(a) Method of exercising the right by the secured right holder under Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Act;

(b) The scope of the effect of the guarantee deposit for suspending auction procedures based on the right to collateral security.

(a) If a person who provides security proves that the reason for the security has ceased to exist or that a person who has the right to the security has consented thereto under Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court shall decide to cancel the security upon application, and if a person who has the right to the security applies for it after the completion of a lawsuit, the court shall notify the person who has the right to the security to exercise the right within a given period, and if the person who has the right to the security does not exercise the right, the court shall consider that the person who has the right to the security has consented

B. The guarantee deposit for the suspension of an auction procedure based on the right to collateral security is to secure the damages if the damages are incurred to the creditor due to the suspension of the auction procedure. Therefore, the scope of its effect is limited to the above right to claim the damages, and it does not affect the secured claim of the right to collateral security or the litigation costs of the lawsuit for cancellation

(a) Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 78Ma263 dated Oct. 26, 1978 (Gong1979, 11607) dated Jun. 18, 1991 (Gong91607) dated Nov. 23, 1979 79Ma74 dated Nov. 23, 1979 (Gong1980, 12365)

Re-appellant

Busan High Court Order 92Ka166 Dated July 31, 1992

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. If a person who provided security proves that the reason for the security has ceased to exist or that a person who has the right to the security has consented thereto under Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court shall decide to cancel the security upon application, and if a person who has the right to the security applies for the security after the completion of a lawsuit, the court shall notify the person who has the right to the security to exercise the right within a given period, and if a person who has the right to the security does not exercise the right, the person who has the right to the security shall be deemed to have consented to the cancellation. In this case, the person who has the right to the security shall exercise the right by means of a lawsuit against the person who has the right to the security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 78Ma263, Oct. 2

2. The guarantee deposit for the suspension of an auction procedure based on the right to collateral security is to secure the compensation for damage if any damage is incurred to the creditor due to the suspension of the auction procedure. Thus, its effect is limited to the above right to claim the damages, and it does not affect the secured debt of the right to collateral security or the litigation cost of the lawsuit for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage (see Supreme Court Order 79Ma74, Nov. 23, 1979

3. Review of the record reveals that in this case, the Re-Appellant, who is the right holder of the security, was urged to exercise his right within 10 days from the court below and submit the purport when he exercised his right, and only the report of right and the receipt certificate with respect to the claim for cancellation of registration of cancellation of establishment registration of collateral security, which can be seen as the principal lawsuit of the provisional disposition case of this case, were submitted. Since the Re-Appellant applied for the determination of amount of litigation costs as above, it cannot be deemed that the Re-Appellant had legitimate exercise of right as the right holder of the security, because the Re-Appellant did not exercise legitimate right within the fixed period of time, the Re-Appellant shall be deemed to have consented to the cancellation of the security. Accordingly, the court below's decision of cancellation of the

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)