The case holding that there is no need to preserve the provisional seizure as the requirement for the provisional seizure.

The case holding that the Gap's right is not necessary to preserve the Gap's right on the ground that Eul's claim was accepted to pay the remaining amount to Byung due to the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership of land (right to share in the site) by Byung, a apartment construction company, and the execution of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of land (right to share in the site), although Eul has the title of debt based on the final and conclusive judgment to pay Eul money to Byung, the third party as well as the third party, and the third party, including Eul, and the third party, as Eul, etc., received the registration of transfer of ownership of the above right to share in the site and made it impossible for Eul to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of land (right to share in the site) or offer of its performance.

Article 697 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Respondent

Suwon District Court Decision 91Na1865 delivered on July 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the applicant based on macroficial evidence has against the respondent, and the respondent has a title of debt based on the final judgment that he shall pay 4,290,118 won to the applicant at the same time with respect to the land listed in the attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court below (right to share in the site), and on the other hand, with respect to the feasibility of the above final judgment, he is not the applicant but the non-applicant corporation, the third party, the third party, the non-applicant company, and three other third parties, the non-applicant company, etc., purchased from the above non-applicant and constructed 80 households on the above ground, constructed the apartment, and sold the land to the non-applicant and the non-applicant company, and the above non-applicant company, the non-applicant company, who received the above claim for the provisional attachment, could not be paid the remainder of the land ownership transfer registration to the non-applicant, and the remaining landowners and the above non-applicant, who received the above claim for the provisional attachment.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and the grounds alleged by the theory of lawsuit are merely the grounds that the right to be preserved exists, and it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below that there is no need to preserve the right is unlawful. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)