Whether a reappeal under Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act or an immediate appeal under Article 444 of the same Act may be contested against the decision of accepting an application for provisional attachment or a provisional disposition (negative)

Articles 283 and 301 of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 442 and 444 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 99Ma865 dated April 20, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1236) Supreme Court Order 2005Ma726 dated September 15, 2005

Nonparty 1 and 20 others

Yan apartment complex reconstruction association (Attorney Kim Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

An intervenor;

Seoul High Court Order 2007Ra527 dated April 10, 2007

All reappeals are dismissed. The costs of reappeals are borne by Re-Appellants.

The grounds of reappeal are examined ex officio prior to judgment.

According to the records, the first instance court rejected the application for provisional disposition of this case filed by the applicant (the other party, hereinafter "applicant"), and the applicant filed a complaint against this. The court below accepted the appeal of the applicant without pleading and rendered a decision to accept the application for provisional disposition of this case.

On the other hand, the debtor or the respondent can raise an objection to the court that issued the preservative measure pursuant to Articles 283 and 301 of the Civil Execution Act, and even if the decision of acceptance was made by the appellate court, it cannot be contested against the reappeal pursuant to Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act or the immediate appeal pursuant to Article 444 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma865, Apr. 20, 199; Supreme Court Order 2005Ma726, Sept. 15, 2005; etc.). The reappeal of this case against the decision of provisional disposition applicant by the appellate court is all unlawful.

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)