[가처분결정에대한재항고][집17(3)민,169]
Cases that cannot be deemed to exceed the scope of the decision of correction.
In addition to the title and other parts of the application for provisional disposition, inasmuch as it is evident that according to the indication of the object of provisional disposition attached to the application and the reasons for the application for provisional disposition, it is the purport that the provisional disposition against disposal is sought with respect to the "feled original timber", it shall be deemed that the portion of the entry "standing timber" in the title section of the provisional disposition against disposal of standing timber and the part of the decision against disposal of standing timber in the order of provisional disposition is erroneous in writing or other obvious errors, and even if the decision of correction was made with "original timber", it shall not exceed the scope of the correction.
Article 197 of the Civil Procedure Act
Appellant 1 et al.
Chuncheon District Court Decision 69Ra26 delivered on July 16, 1969
The reappeal is dismissed.
The re-appellant's grounds of reappeal are examined as follows:
According to the records, it is not clear that the above part of the application for provisional disposition is "No disposal of standing timber" and it is also stated "No disposal of standing timber" in the part other than that of the application for provisional disposition, and the above part is "No disposal of standing timber" as it is stated in the letter of provisional disposition. The above part of the "No disposal of standing timber" can be used as one material for the determination of what the application for provisional disposition is. It is like small theory that the above part of the "No disposal of standing timber" can be used as a material for the determination of no disposal. But it is hard for the court below to find that the above part of the application for provisional disposition is "No disposal of standing timber" with the purport that "No disposal of the standing timber is 207,30" and the above part of the application for provisional disposition cannot be used as a "No disposal of the standing timber" and it is an obvious error of the court below's reasoning that the above part of the application for provisional disposition is no more than 13,000,000 the above part of the application for provisional disposition No. 235.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)