In the case of provisional disposition which deviates from the scope of the application

With respect to an application for provisional disposition seeking the prohibition of interference with the respondent's possession on the premise that the applicant occupies the factory, the decision to the effect that the factory is recognized as a joint possession by the applicant and the respondent, and that the applicant has the custody of each possession entrusted by the applicant is unlawful because it deviates from the scope of the application.

Article 719(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Fluorites

Kim Ho-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 64Ra38 delivered on October 5, 1964

The original decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined as to the reappeal of the reappeal.

In light of the fact that the procedure for provisional disposition is a special procedure under the Civil Procedure Act, even the provisional disposition court, which has authority to select the method of provisional disposition which is deemed necessary to achieve the purpose of the application without referring to the purport of the application within the scope of the application pursuant to Article 719(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, shall not determine the method of provisional disposition deviating from the scope of the application. The court below, based on the record, acknowledged that the re-appellant applied for provisional disposition seeking the prohibition of interference with the other party's possession on the premise that the re-appellant occupies the same chemical three chemical three chemical three plant located in Samcheon-gun-gun, the property to which he belongs, and decided that the above factory is under joint possession of the re-appellant and the other party, and that the court shall keep it in custody. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below did not determine the method of provisional disposition deviating from the scope of the application, and therefore the argument for such measure is reasonable and so it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges under Articles 413(2) and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)