The legal nature of an immediate appeal against an order issued by the presiding judge of the original instance who rejected a special complaint against a decision to suspend compulsory execution (=the immediate appeal under the Civil Procedure Act) and whether Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act can be applied to the said immediate appeal (negative)

The special appeal against a decision to dismiss an application for the suspension of compulsory execution does not constitute an objection against the judgment by the court of execution stipulated under Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act, and an immediate appeal against the order by the presiding judge of the court of original instance who rejected the special appeal is merely an immediate appeal under the Civil Procedure Act (see Articles 450, 425, and 39(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). Moreover, Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act is not applicable to the litigation procedures of the appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. Furthermore, the provisions on an appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the litigation procedures of the appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. Since the Civil Procedure Act does not provide for the deadline

Articles 399(3), 425, and 450 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act

Applicant

Respondent 1 and one other

Incheon District Court Order 2015Kadan451 dated May 13, 2016

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant applied for the suspension of compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in Incheon District Court No. 2015Kadan451, 2010, 2010, 32491, which applied for compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the above court's 2016Na10491 until the judgment of the court was rendered, but it was dismissed. The presiding judge of the court below ordered the Re-Appellant to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Re-Appellant submitted a special appeal after the deadline for special appeal. The Re-Appellant filed an immediate appeal against this, but the court below rejected the Re-Appellant's appeal by applying Article 15 (5) and (3) of the Civil Execution Act on the ground that the Re-Appellant did not submit a written reason for appeal within 10 days from the date on which the written reason for appeal was not specified in the

However, the special appeal against the decision to dismiss the application for the suspension of compulsory execution does not constitute an objection against the judgment by the court of execution stipulated under Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act, and an immediate appeal against the order by the presiding judge of the court of original instance who rejected the special appeal is merely an immediate appeal under the Civil Procedure Act (see Articles 450, 425, and 39(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). Furthermore, Article 15 of the Civil Procedure Act is not applicable to the procedure of appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. Furthermore, the provisions on an appeal apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure of appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act. Since the Civil Procedure Act does not provide for the deadline to submit the statement of reasons for appeal, the said immediate appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground that the re-appellant did not submit the statement of reasons for appeal. Nevertheless, the court of appeal dismissed the re-appellant's immediate appeal under the premise that Article 15

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)