[이사직무집행정지등가처분이의][집22(1)민,28;공1974.3.1,7728]
If the respondent raises an objection against the decision of provisional disposition, the relationship between the lawsuit on the merits has not been pending and the propriety of the provisional disposition
In a case where a debtor raises an objection to the provisional disposition order, the validity of the preservative measure is discussed, the fact that the lawsuit filed by the person who did not have filed the lawsuit on the merits is withdrawn cannot be readily concluded that the existence of the preserved right or the preservation thereof is unnecessary.
Attorney Park Jae-ap et al., Counsel for the applicant
Respondent 1 and five others
Daegu High Court Decision 71Na554 delivered on December 28, 1972
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the applicant’s agent:
According to the reasoning of the judgment in this case, the applicant filed a lawsuit against the defendant company to confirm the absence of each of the provisional shareholders' meetings on August 1, 1968, and the applicant withdrawn the lawsuit to confirm the absence of the provisional shareholders' meeting on August 1, 1968, and there is no other lawsuit to confirm the absence of the above provisional shareholders' meeting and the resolution of the board of directors or the absence of the shareholders' rights. In spite of the order to file a lawsuit, each of the above provisional shareholders' meetings and the resolution of the board of directors did not file a lawsuit to confirm the absence of the shareholders' rights, and therefore, the applicant's application for provisional disposition on the ground that all of the applicants did not exist.
However, this case discussed the legitimacy of the preservative measure as a result of objection by the respondent against the decision of provisional disposition, and it cannot be concluded that the existence of the preservative right or the preservation of the preservative measure is not necessary merely because it had not yet filed a lawsuit on the merits or the fact that the lawsuit on the merits was withdrawn after the lawsuit on the merits was filed, and the records of this case, which are the main lawsuit, do not appear to have been delivered to the records of this case, although the records of this case, which can be known by the verification or other methods, do not appear to have been recorded in the records. However, the decision of the court below that held above did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of the preservative measure by the debtor's objection, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of the preservative measure by the debtor's objection, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appeal on this point, and without
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)