Reference Deposit Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongpyeong, Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

D.com Ltd.

1. On April 23, 2007, Ulsan District Court 2007Kahap332, the applicant filed an application for revocation of provisional attachment with the 1,000,000 won (securities number: 139-052-2007000307) and the surety insurance policy (securities number: 110,000,000 won in cash) deposited with the deposit official of the Ulsan District Court 1685 on April 23, 2007, the remainder of the security except for the 110,000,000 won in cash, out of the security of KRW 5,00,000.

2. The applicant's remaining requests are dismissed.

According to Article 288(1)2 of the Civil Execution Act, a security offered by an obligor for the cancellation of provisional seizure is directly secured by the right to be preserved and the obligee has a kind of pledge against this. Therefore, even if a creditor failed to satisfy the obligee's right to be preserved in the first instance of the lawsuit on the merits, even if the judgment was rendered due to the absence of the obligee's right to be preserved, the cause of security is not extinguished unless the judgment becomes final and conclusive. However, on the other hand, the security provided for the cancellation of provisional seizure under Article 125(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the security provided for the cancellation of provisional seizure under Article 19(3) of the Civil Execution Act, means not only the absence of the cause of providing the security, but also the absence of cause of continuing the existence of the subsequent security (see Supreme Court Order 2006Ma257, Jun. 30, 2006). In addition, in this context, the extinction of the cause of security is limited to the cancellation of the entire security.

According to the records of this case, the respondent issued a provisional attachment order upon the application for provisional attachment of the damage claim of 10 billion won due to the original claimant's illegal act as the preserved right, and the applicant deposited the insurance amount of 1 billion won on April 23, 2007 and submitted the deposit guarantee insurance policy with the insurance amount of 5 billion won on April 23, 2007 in accordance with the court's order to provide security after which the respondent requested the provisional attachment order under Article 288 (1) 2 of the Civil Execution Act. However, in filing the principal lawsuit, the respondent requested only the payment of consolation money of 10 million won and damages for delay unlike the provisional attachment application (Naia was sentenced to the first instance judgment against the respondent on February 18, 2008 on the ground that the applicant's liability is not recognized, unless there are circumstances, it would be sufficient to view that the respondent's above 100 billion won and damages for delay as the security of the principal lawsuit as well as the remainder of 100 billion won.

Judges Han-soo (Presiding Judge)