집행판결청구의 소
Of the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant Mapo-si shall be revoked, and revoked.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court admitting the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows:
(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The following 7 pages are as follows: “The head of Suwon District Court shall request the Defendant to cancel the registration of each of the instant seizures and provisional seizures by an authority, such as the Gyeyangyang Branch Registry, etc., for the establishment of the Suwon District Court,” and “The authority, etc., in the Yangyang Branch Registry, etc., shall implement the procedure of registration of each of the instant seizures and provisional seizures” against the Defendant.
6. The lower part to the 7th part shall be deleted.
With respect to the claim against Defendant B among the part of “the preliminary claim”, the following judgments shall be added, and with respect to the claim against Defendant Mapopo-si, the corresponding part shall be determined as follows:
A decision to dismiss an application for registration or a decision to dismiss an objection does not have res judicata effect. Thus, even upon receipt of a decision to dismiss the application for registration, an application for registration may be filed again by supplementing data, etc. In addition, since res judicata effect exists in the protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of this case, the Plaintiff who has been granted an execution clause to the Defendants, the right of seizure or provisional seizure, the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name C, pursuant to the instant protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of this case, may file an application for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration or provisional seizure registration with the Defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da73753, Dec. 22, 2017; 79Da1702, May 13, 1980). However, as a written consent from other third parties interested in the register of register or a certified copy of a trial that may oppose it, the application for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is dismissed by the Defendants