Interpretation of Article 507(2) of the Civil Procedure Act until a judgment is rendered.

Article 507 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "not later than the time a judgment on the merits is rendered" shall be interpreted as "not later than the time a judgment on the merits is rendered" and it shall be interpreted as "not later than the time a judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive" at the court's discretion.

Article 507(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Park Jong-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant

International Development Corporation

Seoul District Court Order 77.1.29 Dated 77Ka38 Dated

The special appeal is dismissed.

We examine the first ground for special appeal of the special appellant.

The judgment of provisional disposition under Article 507 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act is required as a temporary measure following the filing of a lawsuit of objection against a claim under Article 505 of the same Act. The lawsuit of objection against such claim is subject to the existence of the title of debt, and the lawsuit for exclusion of general executory power is the same as the lawsuit of lawsuit. However, according to the records of this case, even though the applicant company did not have any obligation against the special appellant, the respondent company's real estate is established as a collateral mortgage against the respondent company, and the applicant company is the respondent company, which is the right of collateral security, as the respondent company, which is the Seoul Civil District Court, Incheon District Court, 76Gahap388 of 1976, and the defendant company was the defendant for a claim for the cancellation of provisional disposition. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the court below's decision of suspension of provisional execution was just and there is no error of law as to the claim for objection under Article 500 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it cannot be viewed as the lawsuit of objection against the above 5000th judgment.

In addition, the Supreme Court's decision that points out the issue shall be deemed to be the opinion of the theory of lawsuit and the dissenting opinion, and since a party member maintains the same opinion even after that decision, it cannot be accepted to the purport that the order of the original court is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the theory of lawsuit.

The second point is examined for the same reason.

Article 507(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the term "not later than the judgment on the merits is rendered" means only the time until the judgment on the merits is rendered, as in the theory of lawsuit. It is reasonable to interpret that the time limit may be determined at the discretion of the court in question. In the same purport, the lower court’s determination that the term “not later than the time the judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive” cannot be deemed to constitute an unlawful act of misapprehending the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, on the ground that

We examine the third point for the same reason.

The decision of the court below is not a general provisional disposition under Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, but a decision based on Article 507 (2) of the same Act, as seen in the above first point. Therefore, this theory is unreasonable without any need for further determination.

Ultimately, this special appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)