[1] Whether the object in question must be clearly specified in the decision and execution of provisional disposition on the object in question (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the other party company applied for a provisional disposition on the products of the company in the custody of the other party company and indicated the subject matter in such a way as the item, size, quantity, price, etc., but the subject matter was also indicated in the same manner, but where the products with the same name and size as the subject matter of the provisional disposition are mixed with the products of the other party company at the location of the other party company, the validity

[1] The provisional disposition on the object of dispute is a claim for the performance of the right to preserve the object, so the object of dispute must be clearly specified in the decision and execution of such provisional disposition.

[2] While the applicant company applied for a provisional disposition against the company's products under the custody of the other party company indicated the subject matter in such a way as the item, size, quantity, price, etc., the provisional disposition decision also indicates the subject matter. However, in a case where the other party company's products are mixed with products with the same name and size as those indicated as the subject matter of the provisional disposition, the above provisional disposition decision should be deemed null and void in a case where the subject matter is not specified.

[1] Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-Appellant (Attorney Gyeong-sik et al., Counsel for the re-appellant)

Dae Young Steel Co. Ltd.

Suwon District Court Order 98Ra1338 dated December 15, 1998

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Since a provisional disposition on a dispute is a claim for the performance of the preserved right on a specified object, it should clearly specify the object's dispute in the decision and execution of such provisional disposition.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant Company's approval as a dispute over the provisional disposition of this case was falsely transferred to the other party company among the steel products produced by the Re-Appellant company and supplied to the non-party Identification Steel Co., Ltd., and the location of the product was indicated as the location of the other party company in the application of the provisional disposition of this case. However, the provisional disposition of this case was also indicated only in the item, size, quantity, price, etc. for the subject product, but the warehouse and on the shore at the location of the other party company stated the subject matter in the above manner. The provisional disposition of this case was loaded in a mixture of steel products with the same name and size as the subject of the provisional disposition of this case, as well as those indicated as the subject of the provisional disposition of this case, it is difficult to view that the subject matter was sufficiently specified by the method of indicating the subject matter of the provisional disposition of this case as the subject matter of the provisional disposition of this case. Thus, the provisional disposition of this case cannot be seen as being invalid as the subject matter of the provisional disposition of this case's execution disposition of this case.

Therefore, the order of the court below that maintained the decision of the court of first instance that revoked the execution disposition of this case is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. We do not have merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)