Costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The judgment that the above court revokes the provisional seizure order made on January 31, 1973 with respect to the provisional seizure application case against immovables 73Ka1699 between the claimant and respondent, and the declaration of provisional execution.

After the provisional attachment order was rendered on January 31, 1973 as Seoul District Court 73Ka1669 on the real estate upon request of the respondent and the respondent received the order of the above court on May 9, 1974 upon request of the applicant and did not bring a lawsuit on the merits within the prescribed period. As such, the above provisional attachment order on the real estate is asserted that the above provisional attachment order on the real estate should be revoked due to the lapse of the period of filing the lawsuit. As above, the above provisional attachment order on the real estate is a claim with an executory title and the above provisional attachment order on the real estate which the respondent had taken into account as the preserved claim at the time of the provisional attachment. When the applicant files an application for the order of this case, the above provisional attachment order demanding the debtor to receive the title of debt on the secured claim at the time of the provisional attachment becomes effective after the decision of compulsory commencement of the provisional attachment order on the real estate had already been issued on the basis of the above title of debt. Thus, the above applicant's application for provisional attachment order and its cancellation order cannot be accepted.

The next claimant asserts that the provisional seizure decision on the real estate is to preserve the execution of the construction deposit claims with the name of debt under the final judgment. This is an illegal provisional seizure decision with no need to be preserved claims. Thus, if the creditor of provisional seizure already holds a final and conclusive judgment or other debt titles, it is in principle possible to conduct compulsory execution immediately. Therefore, even if there are a title of debt with executory power, it is not necessary to take any protective measure such as provisional seizure, etc., but it is necessary to preserve execution based on the above title of debt in order to prevent damages arising from execution only when it becomes possible to enforce compulsory execution immediately after the provisional seizure is made under the title of debt, and since the respondent has the title of debt at the time of the above request for provisional seizure, even if there is no request for provisional seizure claims, the claimant who already held the above provisional seizure claim under the title of debt at the time of the above request for provisional seizure cannot seek the cancellation of provisional seizure as well as the above grounds for revocation of provisional seizure.

Therefore, the applicant's application for the revocation of provisional attachment is without merit, and it is dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the same court is just and the applicant's appeal against it is without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Doz. (Presiding Judge)