The effective requirements for suspension of execution by the decision of suspension of execution

Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Order 2009Ma1918 Decided January 28, 2010

Creditor 1 and five others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Choi Jin-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Construction Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court Order 2012Ra1392 dated January 25, 2013

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Upon the decision of suspending compulsory execution, the decision does not have the effect of suspending execution as a matter of course as a matter of course, and the effect of suspending execution takes effect by submitting an original copy of the decision of suspending execution to the executive agency, in light of the purport of Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act, and it does not affect the execution disposition of seizure, etc. already made before the submission of the decision (see Supreme Court Order 2009Ma1918, Jan. 28, 2010

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the record, the obligees filed an application for the attachment and collection order with the original copy of the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap136101 (hereinafter "the original copy of the judgment of this case") against the obligor on August 9, 2012 as executive title, and the judicial assistant issued the attachment and collection order (hereinafter "the order of this case") upon the above application on August 30, 2012. The obligor, on September 11, 2012, ordered compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of this case, the Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap136101 (hereinafter "the appellate court of this case") to the judicial assistant on August 8, 2012, the judicial assistant revoked the order of this case on September 21, 2012, and the judicial assistant revoked the order of this case on September 21, 2012; and the judicial assistant revoked the order of this case on September 21, 20120

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the debtor was subject to the ruling of suspending compulsory execution as of August 8, 2012, the order was valid since the instant order was issued by the court of execution without submitting it to the court of execution. However, the above decision of suspending compulsory execution was submitted to the judicial assistant officer on September 11, 2012, and there is only a suspension of compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment in the future.

Nevertheless, the court below revoked the decision of the court of first instance that approved the disposition of the judicial assistant on the ground that the original copy of the decision of this case, which is the executive title of the order of this case, had already been suspended prior to the obligees' above motion, was not an effective executive title. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the decision of the suspension of compulsory execution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for

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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)