Whether Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act applies to a judgment on an immediate appeal against a judgment on an objection against provisional seizure (negative), and whether the appellant may dismiss it on the ground that the appellant did not submit a written reason for the immediate appeal (negative)

Since a judgment on an objection against provisional seizure does not fall under a judgment of the court of execution on the execution procedure, Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act does not apply to such immediate appeal, and the provisions on an immediate appeal under the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the litigation procedures of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. The provisions on an appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the litigation procedures of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. Since the Civil Procedure Act does not have any provision on the deadline for submission of a statement of grounds for appeal, it is impossible

Articles 443(1) and 444 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 15 and 286 of the Civil Execution Act

Re-appellant

Other Party

Seoul Northern District Court Order 2007Ra165 dated January 7, 2008

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the records and the order of the court below, the re-appellant obtained a provisional attachment order for the real estate in this case owned by the other party on January 17, 2007, Seoul Northern District Court 2007Kadan434, and the other party raised an objection to the above court 2007Kadan2759, and the above court accepted the other party's objection on August 28, 2007 and decided to revoke the provisional attachment order. The above court filed an immediate appeal against the re-appellant. The court below found the re-appellant dismissed the appeal by applying Article 15 (5) and (3) of the Civil Execution Act on the ground that the re-appellant did not state the grounds for appeal in a written appeal and did not submit a written reason for appeal to the first court within 10 days from the date on which the written appeal was filed.

2. However, the order of the court below cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

Since a judgment on an objection against provisional seizure does not fall under the judgment of the court of execution on the execution procedure, Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act shall not apply to such immediate appeal, and the provisions on an immediate appeal under the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the proceedings of the appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. The provisions on an appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings of the appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. The Civil Procedure

Therefore, the Re-Appellant cannot dismiss the immediate appeal on the ground that the Re-Appellant did not submit a written reason for the immediate appeal or did not state the reason.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the immediate appeal on the ground that the re-appellant did not submit a written reason for the immediate appeal under the premise that Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act applies to a trial on the objection against provisional seizure in different opinions. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal on this point has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)