Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Partial cancellation of enforcement-suspension security and extinguishment of the ground for it
Supreme Court, Nov. 18, 2025, 2025Ma7333 (ruling)
Case name: 권리행사최고및담보취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 125(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a secured creditor who was given notice of exercising rights asserts a claim limited to part of the deposited security, must the court cancel the excess as partial security, and where the judgment with a provisional execution declaration has become final, may the security provider apply for cancellation by proving that the creditor's loss from the suspension of enforcement has all been repaid or that the need to secure damages has ceased for an equivalent reason?
Holding
Yes. Where the creditor's asserted claim is confined to part of the deposit, consent to cancellation must be taken for the excess, and the court must cancel that part as partial security. The ground for security given to suspend enforcement of a judgment with a provisional execution declaration is extinguished not only when a judgment annulling it becomes final, but also when, although the judgment has become final, the creditor's loss from the suspension has all been repaid or it is proved that there is no longer any need to secure damages for an equivalent reason.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
최고를 받은 담보권리자의 권리 주장 범위가 담보공탁금액 중 일부에 한정되어 있을 때에는 그 초과 부분에 대해서는 담보취소에 대한 동의가 있다고 보아야 하므로, 법원은 그 부분 일부 담보를 취소하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the scope of the claim asserted by the holder of the security interest who received the demand is limited to a part of the amount of the security deposit, consent to the cancellation of the security must be regarded as given with respect to the excess portion, and therefore the court must cancel the security as to that part in part.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
가집행선고부 판결에 대한 강제집행정지를 위하여 제공된 담보사유 소멸에는 그 가집행선고부 판결을 취소하는 판결이 확정된 경우 등 외에 그 가집행선고부 판결이 확정되었으나 강제집행정지로 인한 채권자의 손해가 모두 변제되었거나 이에 준하는 사유로 더 이상 손해의 배상을 담보할 필요성이 존재하지 않게 되었다고 증명된 경우도 포함된다.
Unofficial English translation
The cessation of the ground for security provided for the purpose of staying compulsory execution against a judgment with a provisional execution declaration includes, in addition to cases such as where a judgment revoking said judgment with a provisional execution declaration becomes final and conclusive, cases where said judgment with a provisional execution declaration has become final and conclusive but it is proved that the creditor's damages caused by the stay of compulsory execution have been fully satisfied or that, for reasons equivalent thereto, there no longer exists a need to secure the payment of damages.
Factors
- 최고를 받은 담보권리자의 권리 주장 범위가 담보공탁금액 중 일부에 한정되어 있을 때에는
- 가집행선고부 판결에 대한 강제집행정지를 위하여 공탁한 담보는 강제집행정지로 인하여 채권자에게 생길 손해를 담보하기 위한 것이고 정지의 대상인 기본채권 자체를 담보하는 것은 아니므로
- 집행의 정지가 효력을 갖는 기간 내에 발생한 지연손해금 상당의 손해가 포함되고
- 지연손해금 상당의 그 손해배상청구권은 기본채권 자체라 할 것은 아니어서 강제집행정지를 위한 담보공탁의 피담보채권이 된다
- 민사소송법 제125조 제3항의 권리행사 최고를 받은 권리자가 위 확정판결을 제출하면 담보공탁에 대한 권리행사를 하였다고 볼 수 있으므로 위 조항에 의한 담보취소를 할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
• Where the scope of the claim asserted by the holder of the security interest who received the demand is limited to a part of the amount of the security deposit,
• The security deposited for the purpose of staying compulsory execution against a judgment with a provisional execution declaration is intended to secure the damages that may arise to the creditor from the stay of compulsory execution and does not secure the underlying claim itself which is the subject of the stay, and therefore
• damages equivalent to the delay damages arising within the period during which the stay of execution has effect are included, and
• the right to claim damages for that loss equivalent to delay damages is not the underlying claim itself, and thus becomes the secured claim of the security deposit made for the stay of compulsory execution
• Where the person entitled to the right who received a demand for the exercise of a right under Article 125 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act submits said final and conclusive judgment, the exercise of the right with respect to the security deposit may be regarded as having been made, and therefore the security cannot be cancelled under that Article
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2004. 7. 5. 자 2004마177 결정(공2004하, 1504)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Ma177, decided July 5, 2004 (Gong 2004 Ha, 1504)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2004. 7. 5. 자 2004마177 결정(공2004하, 1504), 대법원 2017. 1. 13. 자 2016마1180 결정(공2017상, 343), 대법원 2024. 1. 5. 자 2023마7070 결정 / [2] 대법원 1984. 4. 26. 자 84마171 결정(공1984, 1018) / [3] 대법원 2000. 1. 14. 선고 98다24914 판결(공2000상, 374), 대법원 2024. 1. 5. 자 2023마7070 결정, 대법원 2025. 2. 13. 자 2024마7294 결정(공2025상, 550)
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
담보제공자가 담보사유 소멸을 증명하면서 담보취소 신청을 한 경우 법원은 담보취소결정을 하여야 한다(민사소송법 제125조 제1항).
Unofficial English translation
Where the provider of security applies for cancellation of the security by proving the cessation of the ground for security, the court must render a decision to cancel the security (Article 125 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act).
Open question and revisit condition
What must the security provider prove to show that the damages claim equal to the interest arising during the period of suspension has all been extinguished through the deposit or an equivalent means?
The remand ruling of the Uijeongbu District Court on whether the ground for security was extinguished in the KRW 10,884,566 part will show how that proof is weighed. A later decision on how far a suspension security reaches losses that arose before the suspension order, or an amendment to Articles 122, 123 and 125 of the Civil Procedure Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What must the security provider prove to show that the damages claim equal to the interest arising during the period of suspension has all been extinguished through the deposit or an equivalent means?” vs Independent “What contrary circumstances would exclude damages equivalent to delay damages from the losses secured during the stay?”
The primary asks how to prove extinguishment of the secured damages debt, while the independent asks which contrary circumstances exclude delay damages from security coverage.
최고를 받은 담보권리자의 권리 주장 범위가 담보공탁금액 중 일부에 한정되어 있을 때에는 그 초과 부분에 대해서는 담보취소에 대한 동의가 있다고 보아야 하므로, 법원은 그 부분 일부 담보를 취소하여야 한다.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 Uijeongbu District Court, in its ruling of 15 July 2025 (2025KaDam5047), dismissed the applicants' application for cancellation of security in full, on the ground that the respondents had filed a declaration of exercising rights over the delayed damages that arose during the period of suspension.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the respondents' asserted claim was by their own account confined to KRW 10,884,566 of the KRW 20,000,000 deposit, so consent to cancellation had to be presumed for the excess and the court below had to cancel at least that part. It also held that the building handover under item 1 of the order was completed on 1 November 2023, before the suspension order, so losses arising before the suspension are outside the deposit's security effect and it secures only the money and interest under item 3, where the interest accruing during the suspension overlaps with the loss caused by the suspension itself. The court below should therefore also have examined whether the ground for security had been extinguished in the KRW 10,884,566 part, given that the respondents had submitted the final judgment as a document proving the secured claim and that the execution-objection suit ended in a mediation recommendation under which no further enforcement would be pursued; the ruling was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the secured creditor's declared claim extends to the whole of the deposited security, so that no excess remains over which consent to cancellation can be presumed.
- A suspended judgment that does not order payment of money together with interest until the date of repayment, since the deposit's reach over interest-equivalent loss during the suspension period was tied to such an order.
- Circumstances to the contrary showing that the loss caused by the delayed enforcement is not confined to the interest arising while the suspension is effective.
Record verification notes
List the deposit amount, the guarantee insurance issued in place of part of it, and the figure the creditor declared against each one, since the excess is what the court must cancel first. Then trace which items of the suspended judgment had already been enforced before the suspension order, because the deposit reaches only the loss that the suspension itself caused. Finally, gather what is offered to prove that the damages claim has been extinguished, including the final result of any execution-objection suit, and confirm which of Articles 122 and 125 of the Civil Procedure Act the file engages.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민사소송법 제125조 제3항에 따라 권리행사의 최고를 받은 담보권리자가 권리행사를 하였으나 권리 주장의 범위가 담보공탁금액 중 일부에 한정된 경우, 법원이 초과 부분에 대한 일부 담보를 취소하여야 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 가집행선고부 판결 확정 후 담보제공자가 강제집행정지로 인한 채권자의 손해가 모두 변제되었거나 이에 준하는 사유로 손해배상을 담보할 필요성이 존재하지 않게 되었음을 증명하여 담보취소를 신청할 수 있는지 여부(적극) [3] 가집행선고부 판결에 대한 강제집행정지를 위하여 공탁한 담보의 담보적 효력이 미치는 범위 / 금전과 이에 대한 다 갚는 날까지의 지연손해금의 지급을 명한 가집행선고부 판결에 대한 강제집행정지를 위하여 담보공탁을 한 경우, 위 금전의 가집행이 지연됨으로써 집행 정지 기간 내에 발생한 지연손해금 상당의 손해가 위 담보공탁의 피담보채권이 되는지 여부(적극) / 위 판결이 확정되는 경우, 지연손해금의 지급을 명한 부분은 강제집행정지를 위한 담보공탁의 피담보채권이 발생하였음을 증명하는 서면이 되는지 여부(적극) 및 민사소송법 제125조 제3항의 권리행사 최고를 받은 권리자가 위 확정판결을 제출하면 담보공탁에 대한 권리행사를 하였다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where the holder of a security interest who received a demand under Article 125 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act exercises the right but the scope of the assertion of the right is limited to a part of the amount of the security deposit, whether the court must cancel the security in part as to the excess portion (affirmative) [2] After a judgment with a provisional execution declaration becomes final and conclusive, whether the provider of security may apply for cancellation of the security by proving that the creditor's damages caused by the stay of compulsory execution have been fully satisfied or that, for reasons equivalent thereto, there no longer exists a need to secure the payment of damages (affirmative) [3] The scope to which the security effect of the security deposited for the purpose of staying compulsory execution against a judgment with a provisional execution declaration extends / Where security is deposited for the purpose of staying compulsory execution against a judgment with a provisional execution declaration ordering the payment of money and delay damages thereon until the day on which the debt is fully paid, whether damages equivalent to the delay damages arising during the period of the stay of execution, caused by the delay in the provisional execution of said money, become the secured claim of said security deposit (affirmative) / Where said judgment becomes final and conclusive, whether the part ordering the payment of delay damages becomes a document proving that the secured claim of the security deposit for the stay of compulsory execution has arisen (affirmative), and where the person entitled to the right who received a demand for the exercise of a right under Article 125 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act submits said final and conclusive judgment, whether the exercise of the right with respect to the security deposit may be regarded as having been made (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 담보제공자가 담보권리자의 동의 없이 담보취소 신청을 한 경우에 담보권리자가 권리행사의 최고를 받고도 권리를 행사하지 아니하면 담보취소에 동의한 것으로 본다(민사소송법 제125조 제3항). 최고를 받은 담보권리자의 권리 주장 범위가 담보공탁금액 중 일부에 한정되어 있을 때에는 그 초과 부분에 대해서는 담보취소에 대한 동의가 있다고 보아야 하므로, 법원은 그 부분 일부 담보를 취소하여야 한다. [2] 담보제공자가 담보사유 소멸을 증명하면서 담보취소 신청을 한 경우 법원은 담보취소결정을 하여야 한다(민사소송법 제125조 제1항). 가집행선고부 판결에 대한 강제집행정지를 위하여 제공된 담보사유 소멸에는 그 가집행선고부 판결을 취소하는 판결이 확정된 경우 등 외에 그 가집행선고부 판결이 확정되었으나 강제집행정지로 인한 채권자의 손해가 모두 변제되었거나 이에 준하는 사유로 더 이상 손해의 배상을 담보할 필요성이 존재하지 않게 되었다고 증명된 경우도 포함된다. [3] 가집행선고부 판결에 대한 강제집행정지를 위하여 공탁한 담보는 강제집행정지로 인하여 채권자에게 생길 손해를 담보하기 위한 것이고 정지의 대상인 기본채권 자체를 담보하는 것은 아니므로 채권자는 그 손해배상청구권에 한하여서만 질권자와 동일한 권리가 있을 뿐 기본채권에까지 담보적 효력이 미치는 것은 아니다. 그러나 금전과 이에 대한 다 갚는 날까지의 지연손해금의 지급을 명한 가집행선고부 판결에 대한 강제집행정지를 위하여 담보공탁을 한 경우, 위 금전의 가집행이 지연됨으로 인한 손해에는 반대되는 사정이 없는 한 집행의 정지가 효력을 갖는 기간 내에 발생한 지연손해금 상당의 손해가 포함되고, 그 경우 지연손해금 상당의 그 손해배상청구권은 기본채권 자체라 할 것은 아니어서 강제집행정지를 위한 담보공탁의 피담보채권이 된다. 위 판결이 확정되면 그중 지연손해금의 지급을 명한 부분은 강제집행정지를 위한 담보공탁의 피담보채권이 발생하였음을 증명하는 서면이 되고, 민사소송법 제125조 제3항의 권리행사 최고를 받은 권리자가 위 확정판결을 제출하면 담보공탁에 대한 권리행사를 하였다고 볼 수 있으므로 위 조항에 의한 담보취소를 할 수 없다.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제125조 제3항 / [2] 민사소송법 제125조 제1항 / [3] 민사소송법 제122조, 제123조, 제125조 제3항, 제500조 제1항, 제501조, 제502조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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