[출입금지가처분][집15(1)민,141]
(a) A case which misleads the legal principles as to the necessity for provisional disposition with respect to the right of land possession as the right to preserve; and
(b) A case of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the relationship between the possession and the lawsuit on title;
The applicant for provisional disposition has no ownership of the object in dispute, and even if at the end of the end, he/she shall deliver it to the owner of the object, and until the time he/she takes a lawful procedure as to whether the possession of the applicant may be an illegal possession, and the applicant may demand a provisional disposition to prevent interference with the possession or other measures until he/she delivers the object.
Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act
Countries
Respondent
Daegu High Court Decision 66Na292 delivered on November 16, 1966
The judgment below is reversed;
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the applicant and his assistant intervenor's representative.
Since provisional disposition on dispute is recognized as the necessity of provisional disposition when it is difficult to enforce the rights of the parties or there is a concern that it will be considerably difficult to enforce such provisional disposition due to a change in the current situation, the court to which the application for provisional disposition has been filed should examine whether there is no need to take such provisional disposition as above. However, the court below held that "the application for this case where the applicant has the right to possess illegal possession without this right as the right to preserve it is difficult to recognize that there is a need to preserve it as long as it is placed in the name of the respondent to deliver this land, it is difficult to find that there is no need to preserve it." However, the court below held that the application for this case where the right to possess it as the right to preserve is regarded as the right to preserve is groundless. However, although the applicant has no ownership on this case's land at the end, he delivers it to the respondent who is the owner of this case's land, and until then the applicant has obtained the right to possess it as the right to possess it, it is necessary to request the court to dismiss the above legal principles.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)