In a case where the execution certificate is prepared by the commission of the unauthorized representative and becomes null and void, whether such grounds constitute legitimate grounds for appeal in relation to the seizure and collection order with the name of the debt (negative)

When the execution court decides the seizure and collection order, it is necessary to examine and determine the requirements for the seizure and collection order, such as the existence of the title of the debt, whether it is served, whether the preceding seizure order has disability, and whether the application is proper. Although the execution certificate, which is the title of debt, is prepared by the commission of the unauthorized representative, it is not possible to easily investigate and determine the execution by the statement of the execution certificate itself, even though such reason is formal defect. Thus, the execution can be excluded by the lawsuit of objection against the claim, and it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal.

Articles 561(4) and 563(6) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Da3125 Decided December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 246), Supreme Court Decision 94Ma542, 543 dated May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1775), Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489 Decided April 25, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 1582)

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 98Ra523, 524 dated June 8, 1998

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

When the execution court decides the seizure and collection order, it is necessary to examine and determine the requirements for the seizure and collection order, such as the existence of the title of the debt, whether the preceding seizure order is served, whether the execution impediment is sufficient, and whether the application is appropriate. Although the execution certificate, which is the title of debt, is prepared by the commission of the unauthorized Agent, it can not be easily examined and determined by the statement of the execution certificate itself, even though the reason is formal defect, and it can not be easily examined and determined by the statement of the execution certificate, so the execution can be excluded by the lawsuit of objection, and it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma542, 94Ma543, May 13, 1994). The judgment of the court below, which appears to the same purport, is just, and there is no error of law as to the formal defect of the execution certificate, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)