The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: first, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the guardian's act; second, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the right to be preserved in provisional disposition; however, this does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and thus, it cannot

2. Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by a party member at the same time, based on the permission order of the said attorney.

(1) Ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, the court below is justified in finding that the agreement on the distribution of the miscarriage of this case, which was in March 28, 1950, was made by the plaintiff as the guardian of the defendant 1. Accordingly, according to the provisions of Articles 901 through 904 of the former Civil Code, which was in force at the time of the above distribution agreement, the mother of a minor was not the legal guardian, and therefore, the appointment of the plaintiff's guardian is invalid on the premise that the mother is the legal guardian.

(2) Ground of appeal No. 2

There is no need to strictly match the right to be preserved in the subject matter of a preservative measure with the right to be preserved in the subject matter, and the effect of the preservative measure should be regarded as affecting the right to the subject matter of a lawsuit as long as the identity of the claim is recognized.

According to the records, the plaintiff filed an application for provisional injunction against the prohibition of disposal on the ground that the registration of cancellation was void on the ground that the registration of cancellation was made on the real estate in this case, and filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the provisional injunction after the provisional injunction was issued on December 28, 1978, and the registration of the provisional injunction was completed on the seventh day of pleading, and the claim for ownership transfer registration was filed on the first instance trial, and the ownership transfer registration was made on December 30, 1978 as of December 30, 1978 immediately after the provisional injunction was issued. As long as the claim was duly modified within the extent that it did not change on the basis of the claim, the effect of the provisional injunction against disposal on the ground that the right to claim for cancellation before the modification would affect the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration added as the right to claim for preservation. Accordingly, the registration in the name of the defendant last day shall not be deemed null and void in relation to the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the above provisional disposition's right to be preserved at the time of the application for provisional disposition is a right to claim cancellation registration on the ground that it cannot be useful in a lawsuit where the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the prescriptive acquisition is subject to the lawsuit, and that the above registration in the name of the defendant is not a registration of invalidation against the above provisional disposition, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the right to be preserved in the provisional disposition, and this constitutes a serious violation of law that can reverse the judgment below

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court Panel Division for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)