Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Presumption of fault of a provisional disposition creditor whose defeat on the merits has become final, and grounds for rebutting it
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Sept. 24, 2002, 2000Da46184 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a creditor who enforced a preservative measure has lost the action on the merits by a final judgment, is the creditor's intent or negligence presumed with respect to the loss suffered by the debtor?
Holding
Because a preservative measure is granted on a prima facie showing and at the creditor's risk, once the defeat on the merits has become final, the intent or negligence of the enforcing creditor is presumed absent special evidence to the contrary, and the creditor incurs liability for damages. The Supreme Court held that the presumption of negligence is not rebutted merely by the course of the hearing of the provisional disposition, its long-term enforcement, or an appraisal by a patent attorney, and reversed the judgment of the court below.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 보전처분의 집행으로 인하여 채무자가 입은 손해에 대하여는 특별한 반증이 없는 한 집행채권자에게 고의 또는 과실이 있다고 추정되고, 따라서 그 부당한 집행으로 인한 손해에 대하여 이를 배상할 책임이 있다.
Unofficial English translation
As to the damage suffered by the obligor due to the enforcement of the preservative measure, the execution creditor is presumed to have intent or negligence unless there is special rebutting evidence, and therefore is liable to compensate for the damage caused by such wrongful enforcement.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 실체상 청구권이 있는지 여부는 본안소송에 맡기고 단지 소명에 의하여 채권자의 책임 아래 하는 것이므로
Unofficial English translation
whether the claim exists in substance is left to the action on the merits, and since it is imposed merely upon prima facie evidence under the creditor's liability,
Factors
- 단지 소명에 의하여 채권자의 책임 아래 하는 것이므로
- 집행채권자가 본안소송에서 패소 확정되었다면
- 가처분의 집행으로 인한 손해에 대한 실용신안권자의 과실추정이 번복되었다고 할 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• since it is imposed merely upon prima facie evidence under the creditor's liability,
• if the execution creditor has been finally defeated in the action on the merits
• a case where it was held that the presumption of negligence of the utility model right holder as to the damage caused by the enforcement of the provisional disposition cannot be regarded as having been rebutted
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1995. 4. 14. 선고 94다6529 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 94Da6529 decided April 14, 1995
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1977. 6. 7. 선고 77다294 판결(공1977, 10155), 대법원 1992. 9. 25. 선고 92다8453 판결(공1992, 2990), 대법원 1995. 4. 14. 선고 94다6529 판결(공1995상, 1842), 대법원 1995. 12. 12. 선고 95다34095, 34101 판결(공1996상, 376), 대법원 1999. 4. 13. 선고 98다52513 판결(공1999상, 874)
Burden of proof
The opposing party Stated in the decision
특별한 반증이 없는 한 집행채권자에게 고의 또는 과실이 있다고 추정되고
Unofficial English translation
unless there is special rebutting evidence, the execution creditor is presumed to have intent or negligence, and
Open question and revisit condition
If, before the application for the provisional disposition, the creditor had already prevailed in a dispute with the debtor personally, or there were circumstances in which the debtor side admitted the infringement, may this constitute special evidence to the contrary rebutting the presumption of negligence?
We will re-examine this reading if the preservative measure system under the Civil Execution Act, or the provisions or decisions concerning liability for damages arising from an unjustified enforcement of a preservative measure, change.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
An independent reading by another model family (GPT-6 Astra), performed without seeing the first reading and reading only the original text, was compared with the first reading: 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on the fourth axis (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The original text contains both the elements of the presumption—the final defeat on the merits and the absence of special evidence to the contrary—and a case rejecting the rebuttal of the presumption by the utility model right holder, so the reading may differ depending on whether greater weight is placed on the general elements or on the application to the facts.
가처분의 집행으로 인한 손해에 대한 실용신안권자의 과실추정이 번복되었다고 할 수 없다고 한 사례.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below (Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na7426) quoted the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court and, weighing together the fact that the court handling the provisional disposition conducted a careful hearing for approximately six months, that the defendant maintained an exclusive license and manufactured and sold the product for about seven years, that the defendant prevailed in a patent dispute with a company of the same type, that a patent attorney appraised the infringement, that the representative of the plaintiff's dealership submitted a written undertaking and a letter of apology, and the prosecution's indictment, found that there was sufficient ground for the defendant to believe that an infringement had occurred and denied intent or negligence.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, taking into account at the same time that a provisional disposition based on a utility model right has an enormous impact on the continued existence of the debtor's business, held that the presumption of negligence is not rebutted merely by the course of the hearing, the period of enforcement, or the appraisal by a patent attorney. As to the remaining reasons, the Supreme Court held that the opposing party in the dispute was a third party unrelated to the plaintiff; it was unclear what connection non-party 2, who was said to have admitted the infringement, had with the plaintiff; and the indictment was made on May 31, 1995, after the decision on the provisional disposition, and therefore could not serve as a ground for rebutting the presumption. On these bases the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the enforcing creditor prevailed in the action on the merits, or the judgment on the merits has not yet become final
- Where the preservative measure was not enforced, so that the debtor suffered no loss arising from the enforcement
- Where the creditor submitted special evidence to the contrary that directly relates to the debtor personally and that existed before the provisional disposition, thereby breaking the presumption of negligence
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one needs to check whether the circumstances relied upon by the enforcing creditor directly relate to the debtor personally and existed before the application for the provisional disposition, and whether the loss asserted bears a causal relation to the enforcement of the provisional disposition.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 보전처분의 집행채권자가 본안소송에서 패소·확정된 경우, 그 채권자에게 채무자의 보전처분의 집행으로 인한 손해에 대하여 고의 또는 과실이 있다고 추정되는지 여부(적극) [2] 실용신안권에 기한 제조, 판매금지 가처분이 발하여진 후 본안소송에서 실용신안권자의 패소판결이 확정된 경우, 가처분의 부당한 집행을 청구원인으로 하여 제기된 손해배상청구소송에서 가처분의 집행으로 인한 손해에 대한 실용신안권자의 과실추정이 번복되었다고 할 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where the execution creditor of a preservative measure has been finally defeated in the action on the merits, such creditor is presumed to have intent or negligence with respect to the damage suffered by the obligor due to the enforcement of the preservative measure (affirmative) [2] A case where, after a provisional disposition prohibiting manufacture and sale based on a utility model right was issued and a judgment against the utility model right holder in the action on the merits became final, it was held, in an action for damages brought with the wrongful enforcement of the provisional disposition as the ground of the claim, that the presumption of negligence of the utility model right holder as to the damage caused by the enforcement of the provisional disposition cannot be regarded as having been rebutted
Summary of the holding
[1] 가압류나 가처분 등 보전처분은 법원의 재판에 의하여 집행되는 것이기는 하나, 그 실체상 청구권이 있는지 여부는 본안소송에 맡기고 단지 소명에 의하여 채권자의 책임 아래 하는 것이므로, 그 집행 후에 집행채권자가 본안소송에서 패소 확정되었다면 그 보전처분의 집행으로 인하여 채무자가 입은 손해에 대하여는 특별한 반증이 없는 한 집행채권자에게 고의 또는 과실이 있다고 추정되고, 따라서 그 부당한 집행으로 인한 손해에 대하여 이를 배상할 책임이 있다. [2] 실용신안권에 기한 제조, 판매금지 가처분이 발하여진 후 본안소송에서 실용신안권자의 패소판결이 확정된 경우, 가처분의 부당한 집행을 청구원인으로 하여 제기된 손해배상청구소송에서 가처분의 집행으로 인한 손해에 대한 실용신안권자의 과실추정이 번복되었다고 할 수 없다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제750조, 민사집행법 제276조, 제300조 [2] 민법 제750조, 민사집행법 제300조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger