Security for Costs Exemption Appeal Regarding Retention Inventory

In an appeal against a judgment ordering payment, the appellant argued they were exempt from providing security for costs as required by procedural law because the opposing party had already created a list of retained assets (a retention inventory), which was claimed to secure not only rent but also subsequent costs. The court reasoned that the prerequisites for ordering security for costs were met because the appellant admitted to owing prior costs, possessed a provisional negative certificate, and appeared otherwise insolvent. Crucially, the court held that the existence of a retention inventory does not substitute the specific forms of security—cash deposit, securities, or bank guarantee—mandated by the relevant procedural statute, meaning the appellant remained obligated to provide security.