(a) The column of joint and several sureties of a written agreement on transaction of bills and the book of claim for nullification of a mortgage agreement;

(b) Suspending the procedures for voluntary auction;

A. The subject of a lawsuit for confirmation must be related to the current specific rights or legal relations except in the case of a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a deed as stipulated in Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the claim for confirmation of invalidity of a joint and several surety and a mortgage contract under the bill transaction agreement is not related to the current rights or legal relations, but it is unlawful as it does not confirm the authenticity of the certificate as stipulated

B. In a case where the existence of the right to apply for an auction under the Auction Act is disputed, in order to suspend the auction procedure, an objection against the ruling to commence the auction procedure pursuant to Article 28 of the Auction Act shall be raised, and a suspension of execution pursuant to the same Act shall be ordered, or an objection against the obligation shall be filed by applying mutatis mutandis Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act, and an order to suspend the auction procedure may be issued pursuant to Article 507 of the same Act, and a request for the refusal of the auction procedure shall be unlawful as a separate

A. Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 28 of the Auction Act; Articles 505 and 507 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Da2489 delivered on October 25, 1967

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Exchange Bank (Attorney Kim Jae-su, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na3998 delivered on February 26, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

The subject of confirmation must be related to the current specific rights or legal relations except for the case of a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a deed under Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the lawsuit for confirmation of the invalidity of each of the above certificates on the ground that the plaintiff's joint and several sureties and mortgage contract under each of the bill transaction agreements which are the subject of the claim for confirmation of this case are not the current rights or legal relations, but the confirmation of the authenticity of the certificates under the above Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of the lawsuit for confirmation as to the subject of confirmation as to the subject of the lawsuit pointing out, and there is no illegality

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In a case where the existence of the right to request an auction under the Auction Act is disputed, in order to suspend the auction procedure, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's claim seeking a refusal of auction by a separate lawsuit without using the above method, and with the same purport, it is just to determine that the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for a refusal of auction by unlawful means without applying the above method, and there are no errors of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the method of disputeing the right to request an auction, which is pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and all of the court precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit are not consistent with this case, since the party members are not subject to an order to suspend execution under Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act, or a lawsuit of objection as to the obligation is filed by applying mutatis mutandis Article 507 of the same Act.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the absence of a joint and several surety obligation under each of the transaction agreements of this case and mortgage contract, has violated the rules of evidence against each party member's precedent cited in the theory of lawsuit and erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of res judicata effect of the judgment. However, all of the precedents of the lawsuit are not appropriate in this case, and the theory of lawsuit is just and it is clear that it does not constitute a ground for appeal under Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings because it is based on the judgment of the court below or the judgment of the party member as to the rules of evidence on the ground of the surface.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)