[가처분이의][집19(3)민,036]
Even if a tenant of a state property has a preferential right as a relative of the state property, it cannot be viewed as a right under the law, so this cannot be claimed as a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the property by making it a preserved right.
Even if a tenant of a State property has a preferential right as a relative of the State property, it cannot be deemed that the above preferential right is a legal right, and thus, it cannot be claimed that the right is a preserved right to prohibit the disposal of the property.
Article 714(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Applicant
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 71Na395 decided July 2, 1971
The appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.
The grounds of appeal by the applicant’s attorney are examined.
When the respondent leases state property listed in the second list to the non-party at the time of the original adjudication, even if the respondent received a donation of the right of lease from the same non-party, it cannot be said that the respondent acquires the status of tenant against the non-party, and even if the tenant is given preferential treatment in the purchase as a de facto relative of state property, it cannot be viewed as the right of legal person and therefore, the respondent cannot claim a provisional disposition against the non-party on the prohibition of disposal, etc. on the ground that the respondent cannot claim a provisional disposition against the non-party on the basis of the right of preservation. Therefore, there
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Supreme Court judges (Presiding Judge) Jinwon Jinbabrihn