[건물소유권이전등기,토지소유권이전등기][집12(2)민,204]
Whether the act of a third party obligor, which is consistent with the claim that is to be preserved by a disposition is in violation of the contents of the provisional disposition, constitutes an infringement on the right to claim
Even if an obligor in a dispute committed an act in violation of a provisional disposition, such an act is consistent with the content of the claim that was sought to be compensated by a provisional disposition, and thus, it does not infringe on the right to be compensated, the obligor shall not be held liable for damages
Article 750 of the Civil Act
E. E. Handtains
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 63Na478 delivered on April 24, 1964
The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the co-defendants of the court below borrowed 100,000 won from the plaintiff to the above 61.3, and if they fail to repay their debts to the above 61.23, they agreed to acquire the ownership of this case, which was the property belonging to the defendant's country, by payment in substitutes, and they did not pay their debts to the plaintiff, and they did not pay their debts on March 23, 1961, they applied to the Seoul District Court for the above decision that "the plaintiff would be prohibited from exercising the right to claim ownership transfer registration of this case against the plaintiff," and the plaintiff would not be held liable for damages to the above 190,000 won of this case's provisional disposition against the above 19,000 won which would have been against the above 10,000 won of this case's provisional disposition against the defendant's right to claim ownership transfer registration, the plaintiff would not be held liable to the above 30,000 won of this case's provisional disposition.
Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu