Even based on all the data submitted by the applicant, the lower court maintained the first instance court’s ruling dismissing the applicant’s application for the instant provisional disposition on the ground that there is a lack of prima facie proof as to the fact that the respondent entered the (title omitted) university and criticizes the applicant or his/her executives and employees, producing or distributing printed materials, posting posters or placards, or is likely to do such act in the future.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below on the necessity of preserving provisional disposition of this case are just and acceptable. The judgment below did not err in the rules of evidence as to the necessity of preservation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of reappeal.

In addition, the court below did not decide on the existence of the right to preserve the provisional disposition of this case. However, in all preservative measures, there is a vindication as to the existence of the right to preserve and the necessity to preserve the provisional disposition of this case, and these two requirements are separate independent requirements, and thus, they should be independently deliberated regardless of their trade name (see Supreme Court Order 2003Ma482, Aug. 19, 2005). As seen earlier, the court below's decision that the necessity to preserve the application of provisional disposition of this case is not recognized, is just, and the court below did not make an explicit decision on the existence of the right to preserve the provisional disposition of this case and did not err in the judgment on the necessity to preserve the provisional disposition of this case.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)