Even until the time of delivery, if the possessor is likely to cause interference with his possession, he may demand the prevention of such interference and other measures may also be requested.

This case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

According to the original judgment, the court below held as follows. In other words, according to the evidence Nos. 24-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 24-2, "No. 24-1, 24-2, the original court is clear that the defendant and the non-party No. 1 were the mistake in the evidence No. 24-24).In around 1931, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the respondent and the non-party No. 1 for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the applicant purchased the original land, but the judgment against the plaintiff was finally affirmed on September 27, 1966, the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the respondent and the non-party No. 1 was asserted in the lawsuit against the above principal right is reasonable, and the above application for this case was filed with the premise that the applicant has ownership on the ground that the illegal possession without this right is placed in the name of the respondent to transfer the original land, and it is difficult to recognize that there is a need to preserve it."

However, according to the argument of the applicant and evidence Nos. 24-1,2, and 3 of the evidence No. 24-1 (the original judgment of each court below), the applicant purchased the land of this case lawfully from the deceased non-party 2, who is the deceased non-party 2, around 1931, and has obtained it until now. However, the relation between the respondent, who is the inheritor of the above non-party 2, sells the land of this case already sold to the applicant to non-party 1 and completing the transfer of ownership registration cannot be asserted as to the ownership of the land of this case, and the applicant's first possession of the land of this case was lost by the applicant, but the applicant's first possession of the land of this case is not so-called "the possession by illegal act" as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it is clear that the applicant is not obliged to request the preservation of the right of this case to the non-party 2, as well as the original owner's right to possession of this case, and it is difficult to acknowledge the necessity of the provisional disposition as above.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong