Suspension of execution and the time of existence of the provisional disposition

The effect of suspension of execution by provisional disposition shall continue to exist until the time stipulated in the order of the provisional disposition, and its effect shall naturally cease to exist at the time of the arrival of the time.

Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Jink's Sickland

Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, and the Seoul High Court of the second instance 54 civilian 325 delivered on November 2, 1954

The final appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The court below's decision No. 1 stated in Gap evidence No. 2, which does not dispute the establishment of the judgment of the court below. The court below's decision on the ground that the provisional disposition No. 3, the lease of this case, which had been executed by the Seoul High Court on July 5, 4287, could not be ruled against the defendant in the case of the merits of this case before September 29 of the previous year, because it can be recognized that the suspension of execution would result in the extinction of the validity of the provisional disposition. The court below's decision on the suspension of execution under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Evidence No. 3) will not be justified until the conclusion of the court's decision on the provisional disposition No. 1, which had been executed simultaneously with the judgment of the court of first instance until the expiration of the execution of this case's lease contract. However, the court below's decision on the provisional disposition No. 1, which had no error of law by the conclusion of the court below's decision on the provisional disposition No. 3, which had no error in the conclusion of the conclusion of the court's decision.

According to the reasoning of the original judgment on the ground that the suspension of execution under the provisional disposition continues to be effective until the time stipulated in the order of the provisional disposition, and its effect ceases to exist as a matter of course upon the arrival of the time stipulated in the original judgment on the ground that the provisional disposition on the lease of this case was decided by the Seoul High Court on July 5, 4287 to the time of the judgment on the principal lawsuit on the merits of the case, and it can be recognized that the provisional disposition on the ground that the suspension of execution was decided against the defendant on September 29 of the same year, and that the provisional disposition on the ground that the provisional disposition on the ground that the provisional disposition on the ground that the suspension of execution had ceased to be effective at the same time as the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit on September 29, 4287, the original judgment on the provisional disposition No. 3, which is no dispute on the establishment, shall continue to exist until the end of the original judgment on the 29th day of this lawsuit, and that the original judgment on the 2nd day of this lawsuit shall continue to exist until the original judgment on the 4th day of this case.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below as the ground of appeal No. 2, the plaintiff was the legitimate lessee of the building in question upon entering into a lease agreement with the government agency of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 9, 4286 with respect to the building in question, which is the property devolving upon the property belonging to the government agency of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the short-term period of September 9, 4286. Since the defendant occupied and managed the building in good relation since he moved into the building after August 15, 4286, the government office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City infringed upon the defendant's right of interest and leased the building in kind to the plaintiff who did not have a relation of interest, but the lease agreement was illegal, and the defendant filed an appeal and the administrative litigation were also filed. Accordingly, the plaintiff's lease agreement in the name of the government office of second instance, which is the name of the plaintiff's cancellation of the right of lease, and therefore, it cannot be justified as the plaintiff's right of lease.

In addition, by recognizing that there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant occupies the building, the defendant shall be obligated to specify the name of the building in favor of the plaintiff. However, the court below judged that the following errors exist: (a) although the court below determined that the plaintiff was the tenant by the evidence No. 1 and that the defendant occupied the house, the plaintiff may oppose the third party by completing the registration; (b) even if the plaintiff became the right of lease, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff because the court below's reasoning that the plaintiff's request for the name of the building in favor of the plaintiff was insufficient, and that the plaintiff's request for the name of the building in favor of the plaintiff is not sufficient enough to judge that the plaintiff was the duty to respond to the above, and that the plaintiff's request for the name of the building in favor of the plaintiff, which is a legitimate ground for admitting that the plaintiff's right of lease has been occupied again by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's request for the name of the building in favor of the plaintiff, which is a legitimate ground for admitting the plaintiff's right of lease.

Therefore, since the appeal of this case is clearly groundless, it is recognized that it is reasonable to dismiss it, and it is decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)