The case holding that the decision of provisional seizure executed before the enactment and enforcement of the Civil Execution Act shall be revoked only when a lawsuit is not filed on the merits of 10 years after the execution of provisional seizure pursuant to Article 706 (2) of the former Civil Procedure Act.

The case holding that the decision of provisional seizure executed prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Civil Execution Act can be revoked only when a lawsuit is not filed within 10 years after the execution of provisional seizure pursuant to Article 706 (2) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002).

Article 288(4) of the former Civil Execution Act (amended by Act No. 7358 of Jan. 27, 2005), Article 4 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), Article 9(3) of the Addenda to the Civil Execution Rule (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), Article 3 of the Addenda to the Civil Execution Rule (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2005), Article 706(2) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see current Article 288(1)3 of the Civil Execution Act)

Social Welfare Foundation Socsan

Korea Standards Bank, Inc., the Bank of Korea

1. The motion of this case is dismissed.

2. Costs of the application shall be borne by the applicant;

This Court's decision of provisional attachment on August 10, 1996, 253.9 square meters between the respondent and the South Sea Industry Co., Ltd., is revoked.

1. Applicant's assertion

A. On August 10, 1996, the Gwangju District Court rendered a decision of provisional seizure (hereinafter “decision of provisional seizure of this case”) against the applicant’s ownership (the third party’s domicile omitted at the time of the application for provisional seizure of real estate owned by the applicant in Seoul (the third party’s ownership) and 253.9m2 of the Seoul (the third party’s ownership). The decision of provisional seizure of this case was executed on August 16, 1996.

B. Since the respondent did not institute a lawsuit on the merits for five years after the provisional attachment of this case was executed, the respondent sought revocation of the provisional attachment of this case pursuant to Article 288(4) of the Civil Execution Act.

2. Determination:

(a) Enactment and revision of the Civil Execution Act and the transitional provisions thereof;

(1) Article 4 of the Addenda to the former Civil Execution Act (amended by Act No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 2002, the enforcement date thereof is July 1, 2002) provides that "the statutory period and its calculation that had been in progress before the enforcement of this Act shall be governed by the previous provisions." Article 9 (3) of the Addenda to the former Civil Execution Act provides that "Article 4 of the Addenda to the former Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the period prescribed in Article 288 (4) of the Act (including cases where it is applied mutatis mutandis under Article 301 of the Act)," and Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Civil Execution Act (amended by Act No. 7358 of Jan. 27, 2005) provides that "the statutory period and its calculation that had been in progress before the enforcement of the Act shall be governed by the previous provisions."

(b) Markets:

According to the records, the provisional attachment decision of this case was executed on August 16, 1996, and the respondent did not file a lawsuit on the merits of the provisional attachment order of this case until March 9, 2006, which is the closing date of the examination of this case after the execution of the provisional attachment of this case. However, as seen above, with respect to the provisional attachment order of this case executed on or before July 1, 2002, which was enforced before the enforcement date of the former Civil Execution Act, it is possible to revoke the provisional attachment order of this case only after ten years have passed since the provisional attachment execution was executed in accordance with Article 706 (2) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 202 under the former Civil Execution Act). The provisional attachment decision of this case was executed on August 16, 196, which was enforced before July 1, 2002, and it has not yet been closed until March 19, 2006.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's application of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)