(2) Costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The provisional attachment decision made on June 16, 1969 between the applicant and the respondent regarding the case of application for provisional attachment of real estate 69Ka507 real estate in Incheon District Court 69Ka507 is authorized.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the respondent.

On June 16, 1969, the applicant and the respondent made a provisional attachment decision on the real estate stated in the attached list as Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court Incheon Branch 69Ka507, and the respondent decided to sell all the real estate and facilities, which constitute the factory of the company other than the applicant and the company other than the applicant who is a representative of unlimited employees and the company other than the applicant who is a joint applicant (hereinafter referred to as "non-applicant company") to sell all the real estate and facilities, which constitute the factory of the company other than the applicant, and the company other than the applicant entered into a factory sales contract in the attached list on April 1, 1969, and the other party agreed to compensate for the amount equivalent to 31,50,000 won including the real estate listed in the attached list on April 1, 1969. < Amended by Act No. 3150, Apr. 24, 1969>

However, since around 234 of the above factory site, which is part of the above subject matter of sale, is included in the road site as it goes against urban planning at the time of the contract, and this is serious defect that failed to fulfill the mission of the factory, the applicant cancelled the above sale and purchase contract on May 29, 1969 under Article 580 of the Civil Act. Thus, the applicant is assigned to the applicant for the above 15,000,000 won including the down payment of KRW 5,000,000 and the intermediate payment of KRW 5,00,000,000, which was already paid to the applicant as part of the above subject matter of sale and purchase, and as such, the applicant cannot be acknowledged as being assigned to the above 41,00,000 won and the above 4,000,000 won as the right to preserve the factory site, according to the purport of the witness testimony at the time of the above contract cancellation as well as the above 4,000,0000 won.

On the other hand, since the respondent claims that the applicant rescinded the above contract on July 8, 1969 because the non-applicant company did not perform the above contract, the respondent made a claim that the above contract was rescinded on July 8, 1969. Thus, in full view of the testimony of the witness in the written evidence Nos. 1 (responding and notification) and 2 (responding to the lawsuit that is recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of non-applicant No. 5 (responding and notification) of the court below witness, the applicant has expressed his intention to cancel the above contract to the non-applicant company on May 29, 1969. Thus, the non-applicant company notified the applicant that the contract should be performed under the above contract on June 1, 1969, but the applicant did not perform the contract. Thus, the above contract cannot be deemed to have been rescinded due to the applicant'

2. If so, the applicant lost his right to claim the above down payment of KRW 5,00,00,000, and the company other than the applicant is obligated to return the above intermediate payment of KRW 5,000,000 to the applicant, and the respondent is liable for changing the obligations of the company other than the above application as a general partner of the company other than the applicant. Thus, the existence of the preserved claim of KRW 5,00,000 against the respondent can be recognized, but in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement of KRW 5,00,00 in the evidence 5-1,2 (each receipt), the respondent may recognize that he returned the lawsuit without dispute over the establishment to the applicant on December 18, 1969 and on December 24, 1969.

Therefore, the application for provisional seizure against the real estate of this case filed by the applicant in order to preserve the claim as alleged by the respondent is without merit, and therefore, it is reasonable to revoke the decision of provisional seizure of this case and dismiss the application for provisional seizure of this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below, which forms the conclusion, is just, and the appeal of the applicant is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of the appeal cost, since the judgment of the

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)