[가처분집행취소][공1999.4.15.(80),628]
In cases where Article 240 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act applies to the principle of prohibition of re-instigation of a suit under Article 240 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act by a person holding a provisional disposition who has been sentenced to a judgment against the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition
In the case where the provisional disposition right holder filed an appeal against the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition decision, but the appellate court withdraws the lawsuit, thereby making it impossible to re-request the ownership transfer registration for the provisional disposition real estate pursuant to the principle of prohibition of re-instigation of lawsuit as stipulated in Article 240 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the provisional disposition decision may no longer be maintained as there is no need to
Articles 240(2), 706(1), and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act
Applicant
Respondent
Seoul High Court Decision 96Na37284 delivered on February 5, 1998
The appeal is dismissed. All costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence, etc., and found that the non-applicant 1 sold the debt amount of 60,395,730 won to the non-applicant 1 on April 15, 1989, to the non-applicant 2, not the respondent, and the non-applicant 2, to whom the non-applicant 2 paid the debt amount of 60,395,730 won pursuant to the agreement, and determined that the non-applicant 2 had the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the non-applicant 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won including the real estate of this case, and that the non-applicant 1,000,000,000 won can no longer be claimed against the non-applicant 1,000,000 won.
In light of the records, the above evidence cooking and fact-finding by the court below is correct, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)