Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Restoration after reversal and money paid outside the execution order
Supreme Court, Aug. 13, 2026, 2026Da202771 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does money paid by a defendant under a first-instance judgment in which provisional execution was not ordered fall within 'things paid pursuant to a provisional execution order', the subject of restoration under Article 215(2) of the Civil Procedure Act?
Holding
It does not. Only what the defendant performed toward the plaintiff as a result of provisional execution is the subject of restoration, and money that the first-instance judgment did not make subject to provisional execution must be treated as voluntary repayment. The sum the defendant company paid included a subrogated payment for a co-defendant standing in a relationship of successive joint and several liability, and that payment appears to have been made not under the provisional execution ordered against it but as voluntary repayment, so the court below erred in computing the advance to be returned without deducting it at all.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
민사소송법 제215조 제2항에서 원상회복의 대상으로 규정하고 있는 ‘가집행의 선고에 따라 지급한 물건’이라 함은 가집행의 결과로서 피고가 원고에게 이행한 물건만을 의미하고, 제1심판결에서 가집행이 선고되지 않은 금전의 지급은 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제한 것으로 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The 'goods paid pursuant to a declaration of provisional execution' prescribed in Article 215(2) of the Civil Procedure Act as the subject of restoration to the original state means only the goods that the defendant has performed to the plaintiff as a result of provisional execution, and the payment of money for which provisional execution was not declared in the judgment of the court of first instance must be regarded not as having been paid pursuant to a declaration of provisional execution but as having been voluntarily performed.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 ◇◇◇ 주식회사의 가지급물반환신청에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 피고 주식회사 □□□의 소송수계인 회생채무자 주식회사 □□□의 관리인 피고 2에 대한 상고, 피고 주식회사 △△△, 주식회사 □□□의 소송수계인 회생채무자 주식회사 □□□의 관리인 피고 2의 각 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
That portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the application of defendant ◇◇◇ Co., Ltd. for the return of provisional payments is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's final appeal against Defendant 2, the administrator of the rehabilitation debtor □□□ Co., Ltd., the succeeding party in the litigation to defendant □□□ Co., Ltd., and the final appeals of defendant △△△ Co., Ltd. and of Defendant 2, the administrator of the rehabilitation debtor □□□ Co., Ltd., the succeeding party in the litigation to defendant □□□ Co., Ltd., are all dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
제1심판결에서 가집행이 선고되지 않은 금전의 지급은 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제한 것으로 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The payment of money for which provisional execution was not declared in the judgment of the court of first instance must be regarded not as having been paid pursuant to a declaration of provisional execution but as having been voluntarily performed.
Factors
- 가집행의 결과로서 피고가 원고에게 이행한 물건만을 의미하고
- 제1심판결에서 가집행이 선고되지 않은 금전의 지급은 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제한 것으로 보아야 한다
- 피고 갑과 부진정연대의 관계에 있는 피고 을을 위한 대위 지급금도 포함되어 있었는데
- 대위 지급금 부분은 제1심판결의 피고 갑에 대한 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제되었다고 보일 뿐인데도
Unofficial English translation
• means only the goods that the defendant has performed to the plaintiff as a result of provisional execution, and
• the payment of money for which provisional execution was not declared in the judgment of the court of first instance must be regarded not as having been paid pursuant to a declaration of provisional execution but as having been voluntarily performed
• which sum also included a payment made by subrogation for Defendant B, who stood in an imperfect joint and several obligation relationship with Defendant A,
• although the portion corresponding to the payment made by subrogation was merely deemed to have been voluntarily performed rather than paid pursuant to the declaration of provisional execution against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1965. 8. 31. 선고 65다1311, 1312 판결(집13-2, 민116), 대법원 1977. 6. 28. 선고 77다402, 403 판결, 대법원 2002. 10. 11. 선고 2002다40098, 40104 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 65Da1311, 1312 decided August 31, 1965 (Collection 13-2, Civil 116), Supreme Court Decision 77Da402, 403 decided June 28, 1977, Supreme Court Decision 2002Da40098, 40104 decided October 11, 2002
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1965. 8. 31. 선고 65다1311, 1312 판결(집13-2, 민116), 대법원 1977. 6. 28. 선고 77다402, 403 판결, 대법원 2002. 10. 11. 선고 2002다40098, 40104 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the first-instance judgment had ordered provisional execution over a sum that included a subrogated payment, would that subrogated payment itself be a thing paid pursuant to the provisional execution order?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, once it recomputes the advance to be returned with the subrogated payment deducted, will show how this rule is applied. Any amendment to Article 215(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, or a later decision treating subrogated payments differently, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
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 “If the first-instance judgment had ordered provisional execution over a sum that included a subrogated payment, would that subrogated payment itself be a thing paid pursuant to the provisional execution order?” vs Independent “Can the voluntary payment made for the codefendant be recovered through a separate substantive claim, and on what conditions?”
The primary asks a counterfactual about whether a subrogated payment would count if provisional execution had covered it, while the independent asks whether and on what conditions the voluntary payment can be recovered through a separate substantive claim.
민사소송법 제215조 제2항에서 원상회복의 대상으로 규정하고 있는 ‘가집행의 선고에 따라 지급한 물건’이라 함은 가집행의 결과로서 피고가 원고에게 이행한 물건만을 의미하고, 제1심판결에서 가집행이 선고되지 않은 금전의 지급은 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제한 것으로 보아야 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 22 January 2026 (2024Na2038361), found that the defendant company had paid KRW 4,506,236,387 on 10 July 2024, being the principal that the first-instance judgment had ordered with provisional execution together with delay damages up to that date. After deducting KRW 3,879,511,288, the reduced principal and delay damages it was to pay under the appellate judgment, it ordered the plaintiff to return KRW 626,725,099 plus delay damages from 11 July 2024.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the sum the defendant company paid included a subrogated payment for the co-defendant guarantee company, which stood in a relationship of successive joint and several liability with it, and that this payment appears to have been made not under the provisional execution ordered against the defendant company but as voluntary repayment. Since the court below computed the advance to be returned without considering that deduction at all, it had misapplied the law on the return of advance payments and had failed to examine what was needed, affecting the judgment. The Court reversed that portion and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, while dismissing the plaintiff's and the other defendants' appeals.
Distinguishing conditions
- A payment that the defendant made under a first-instance judgment in which provisional execution was ordered over that monetary payment, since such performance is what Article 215(2) restores.
- A payment made of the defendant's own motion without any provisional execution, since the Court treats it as voluntary repayment rather than performance under the order.
- A dispute over the amount of the principal of the defect-repair damages itself, on which the Court found no error and dismissed the appeals.
Record verification notes
Set out which parts of the first-instance judgment carried provisional execution and match them one by one against the sums the defendant actually paid on 10 July 2024. Then isolate any payment made for another obligor, here a guarantee company in a relationship of successive joint and several liability, and check whether the court below deducted it. Keep the findings on the principal amount, KRW 6,163,203,411, apart, since those appeals were dismissed.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민사소송법 제215조 제2항에서 원상회복의 대상으로 규정하고 있는 ‘가집행의 선고에 따라 지급한 물건’의 의미 및 제1심판결에서 가집행이 선고되지 않은 금전의 지급 부분이 이에 포함되는지 여부(소극) [2] 원고가 피고 갑, 을 등을 상대로 손해배상을 구하는 소를 제기하여 제1심에서 가집행선고부 원고 일부 승소판결이 선고된 후 피고 갑이 원고에게 판결에 따른 손해배상금을 지급하였고, 위 돈에는 피고 갑과 부진정연대의 관계에 있는 피고 을을 위한 대위 지급금도 포함되어 있었는데, 그 후 원심이 피고 갑의 패소 부분을 일부 취소하면서 가지급금의 반환을 위해 원고에 대하여 피고 갑이 지급한 위 금액에서 원심판결에 따라 피고 갑이 지급해야 할 감축된 손해배상금을 공제한 금액의 지급을 명한 사안에서, 피고 갑이 지급한 돈 중 대위 지급금 부분은 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제되었다고 보일 뿐인데도, 원고가 피고 갑에게 반환하여야 할 가지급금을 산정하면서 위 대위 지급금의 공제를 전혀 고려하지 아니한 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 위법이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of 'goods paid pursuant to a declaration of provisional execution' prescribed in Article 215(2) of the Civil Procedure Act as the subject of restoration to the original state, and whether the payment of money for which provisional execution was not declared in the judgment of the court of first instance is included therein (negative) [2] The plaintiff filed an action seeking damages against Defendant A, Defendant B, etc., and after a judgment partially in favor of the plaintiff with a declaration of provisional execution was rendered in the court of first instance, Defendant A paid the plaintiff the damages in accordance with the judgment, which sum also included a payment made by subrogation for Defendant B, who stood in an imperfect joint and several obligation relationship with Defendant A; the court below thereafter partially reversed the losing portion of Defendant A and, in order to have the provisional payment returned, ordered the plaintiff to pay the amount obtained by deducting, from the sum paid by Defendant A as aforesaid, the reduced damages that Defendant A was required to pay in accordance with the judgment of the court below; and in that case, even though the portion of the money paid by Defendant A corresponding to the payment made by subrogation was merely deemed to have been voluntarily performed rather than paid pursuant to a declaration of provisional execution, the determination of the court below, which in calculating the provisional payment that the plaintiff was required to return to Defendant A did not consider at all the deduction of the payment made by subrogation as aforesaid, was erroneous in that it involved a misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 민사소송법 제215조 제2항에서 원상회복의 대상으로 규정하고 있는 ‘가집행의 선고에 따라 지급한 물건’이라 함은 가집행의 결과로서 피고가 원고에게 이행한 물건만을 의미하고, 제1심판결에서 가집행이 선고되지 않은 금전의 지급은 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제한 것으로 보아야 한다. [2] 원고가 피고 갑, 을 등을 상대로 손해배상을 구하는 소를 제기하여 제1심에서 가집행선고부 원고 일부 승소판결이 선고된 후 피고 갑이 원고에게 판결에 따른 손해배상금을 지급하였고, 위 돈에는 피고 갑과 부진정연대의 관계에 있는 피고 을을 위한 대위 지급금도 포함되어 있었는데, 그 후 원심이 피고 갑의 패소 부분을 일부 취소하면서 가지급금의 반환을 위해 원고에 대하여 피고 갑이 지급한 위 금액에서 원심판결에 따라 피고 갑이 지급해야 할 감축된 손해배상금을 공제한 금액의 지급을 명한 사안에서, 피고 갑이 원고에게 지급한 돈 중 피고 을을 위한 대위 지급금 부분은 제1심판결의 피고 갑에 대한 가집행의 선고에 따른 것이 아니라 임의로 변제되었다고 보일 뿐인데도, 원고가 피고 갑에게 반환하여야 할 가지급금을 산정하면서 위 대위 지급금의 공제를 전혀 고려하지 아니한 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 위법이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 ◇◇◇ 주식회사의 가지급물반환신청에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 피고 주식회사 □□□의 소송수계인 회생채무자 주식회사 □□□의 관리인 피고 2에 대한 상고, 피고 주식회사 △△△, 주식회사 □□□의 소송수계인 회생채무자 주식회사 □□□의 관리인 피고 2의 각 상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고의 피고 주식회사 □□□의 소송수계인 회생채무자 주식회사 □□□의 관리인 피고 2에 대한 상고로 인한 부분은 원고가, 피고 주식회사 △△△, 주식회사 □□□의 소송수계인 회생채무자 주식회사 □□□의 관리인 피고 2의 상고로 인한 부분은 위 피고들이 각각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
That portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the application of defendant ◇◇◇ Co., Ltd. for the return of provisional payments is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's final appeal against Defendant 2, the administrator of the rehabilitation debtor □□□ Co., Ltd., the succeeding party in the litigation to defendant □□□ Co., Ltd., and the final appeals of defendant △△△ Co., Ltd. and of Defendant 2, the administrator of the rehabilitation debtor □□□ Co., Ltd., the succeeding party in the litigation to defendant □□□ Co., Ltd., are all dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion arising from the plaintiff's final appeal against Defendant 2, the administrator of the rehabilitation debtor □□□ Co., Ltd., the succeeding party in the litigation to defendant □□□ Co., Ltd., shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the portion arising from the final appeals of defendant △△△ Co., Ltd. and of Defendant 2, the administrator of the rehabilitation debtor □□□ Co., Ltd., the succeeding party in the litigation to defendant □□□ Co., Ltd., shall be borne by those defendants respectively.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제215조 제2항 [2] 민사소송법 제215조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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