[1] In case where the debtor submitted the documents under Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act after an assignment order was issued, the measures to be taken by the appellate court

[2] Measures to be taken by the court of execution on the grounds of obstruction of execution

[1] Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 229 (8) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 3 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 9Ma117 and 118 dated August 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2160) Supreme Court Order 2003Ma1806 dated July 9, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1507) / [2] Supreme Court Order 2000Ma5221 dated October 2, 2000 (Gong200Ha, 2373)

[Re-Appellant]

Suwon District Court Order 2008Ra275 dated July 14, 2008

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

After the issuance of an assignment order, where a debtor has submitted the documents under Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act for another reason, the appellate court shall suspend the trial on the appeal under Article 229 (8) of the same Act except for the case where the whole order is revoked for another reason; where the provisional suspension of execution has become final and conclusive due to the cancellation of execution or the continued execution; where the provisional suspension of execution has become final and conclusive due to the cancellation of execution, the appeal shall be accepted and the whole order shall be revoked; and where the termination has occurred due to the continued execution, the appeal shall be dismissed (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma17, 118, August 27, 199; Supreme Court Order 2003Ma1806, July 9, 2004; etc.). Meanwhile, the appellate court shall ex officio investigate the existence or absence of a cause for interference with execution before the commencement or continuation of execution; where there exists such cause, it shall be dismissed if there exists a request for revocation or cancellation of execution, etc. 200, and thereafter.

According to the records, on April 23, 2008, creditors filed an application with Suwon District Court for the attachment and assignment order of claims against the third party obligor on the basis of the executory exemplification of promissory note issued by the Re-appellant. Upon the above application, the court below issued the attachment and assignment order of claims under the same court on April 25, 2008. On May 15, 2008, the Re-appellant filed an immediate appeal against the above disposition by a judicial assistant, and on May 23, 2008, the court below rejected the execution order under Article 4808Gao83 of the Civil Execution Act. The court below ordered the provisional suspension order under Article 208 of the Civil Execution Act. The court below should have dismissed the execution order under the above provisional suspension order under the provisional suspension order under the provisional suspension order under the provisional suspension order under the Civil Execution Act, even if the non-appellant submitted a copy of the decision to suspend execution under Article 208Kaogi1275 on May 21, 2008.

Nevertheless, although the order of the court below maintains the attachment and assignment order of this case, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the measures to be taken by the appellate court in the case where the documents of suspension of compulsory execution were submitted at the appellate court as to the assignment order, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for reappeal pointing

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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)