(a)the method of appeal to the rejection of the application for the suspension of compulsory execution and the measures of the court which received the appeal against the said decision;

(b) If a request for the suspension of compulsory execution is filed with respect to a judgment of a provisional execution sentence revoking a provisional seizure.

A. According to the provisions of Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act, no appeal may be filed against a ruling dismissing a request for the suspension of compulsory execution against a ruling with a provisional execution declaration. Thus, the special appeal stipulated in Article 420 of the same Act is permitted. Thus, even if the parties did not indicate that they were special appeal and that they were returned to the Supreme Court, the court which received the petition of appeal should treat them as special appeal and send the records of trial to the Supreme Court.

(b) With respect to a judgment of provisional execution sentence revoking the provisional seizure order, a request for the suspension of compulsory execution pursuant to Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds of an appeal may not be made.

(a)Articles 473, 474, 420 of the Civil Procedure Act;

(a) Supreme Court Order 83Hun-Ma381 Dated September 10, 1983; Order 85Da151 Dated November 15, 1985; Supreme Court Order 85Ma381 Dated July 2, 1985

[Defendant-Appellant] Cho Sung Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 86Ka764 dated March 3, 1986

The special appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the records, the court below (referring to the government support of the Seoul District Court; hereinafter the same shall apply) accepted the application to suspend the above compulsory execution and ordered the order to suspend the above compulsory execution to the court of Seoul District Court until the appellate court's judgment, on the ground that the special appellant filed a provisional attachment order on July 31, 1985 with respect to the same court's claim provisional attachment application case No. 85Ka2431, which is the other party to the same industry, the other party to the provisional attachment order was revoked on February 7, 1986 as 85Ka2618. The provisional attachment cancellation order is dismissed. Paragraph 1 of the provisional attachment cancellation order which states that provisional execution can be provisionally executed. Accordingly, the court below erred in receiving the application to suspend the above provisional execution from the special appellant to the Seoul District Court's judgment and ordered the above provisional execution suspension order to the court below until the appellate court's judgment was pronounced, and the court below again revoked the above provisional attachment order and dismissed the appeal's application again by the special appellant to the Seoul High Court's rejection.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act, a complaint may not be filed against a decision to dismiss an application for the suspension of compulsory execution against a judgment with a provisional execution declaration. Thus, a special complaint under Article 420 of the same Act may be permitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 85Do151, Nov. 15, 1985; Order 83Do370, Sept. 10, 1983). Thus, even if a party did not indicate that it is a special complaint and that it is valuable by the Supreme Court, the court in receipt of the written complaint shall treat it as a special complaint and send the records of trial to the Supreme Court.

In this case, the court below sent the records to the Seoul High Court, and the decision made by the same court is due to a decision made by a court without authority. Thus, this case shall be treated as a special appeal against the decision of the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 85Ma381, Jul. 2, 1985).

2. On the grounds of special appeal, it is impossible to apply for the suspension of compulsory execution pursuant to the provisions of Articles 474 and 473 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds of an appeal against the judgment with a declaration of provisional execution revoking the provisional seizure order. Therefore, the original decision dismissing the application for the suspension of compulsory execution of this case from this view is just and it cannot be viewed that there has been any violation of the Constitution or law against the original decision. Thus, the argument is groundless.

3. Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)