1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff’s ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the assertion in the court of first instance, and there is no evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in addition to this court.

In accordance with the evidence submitted by the first instance court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court shall be recognized as legitimate.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes as the ground for appeal. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant, and since F, the creditor of provisional seizure, applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate of this case and lost the ownership of the above real estate, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount stated in the claim as warranty liability under Article 576 of the

B. Article 576 of the Civil Act provides for the seller's liability for warranty in a case where the ownership of real estate belongs to the seller at the time of the sales contract, so it is possible to acquire the buyer's ownership, but it becomes impossible to transfer the ownership by exercise of the security right such as the exercise of mortgage or lease on a deposit basis.

However, the execution of the provisional seizure decision has the effect of prohibiting the debtor from selling, selling, donating, or setting a security right to the object of provisional seizure, or any other disposition, and the debtor's disposal act contrary to provisional seizure has the effect of prohibiting disposal by provisional seizure, so it is relatively invalid in relation to the creditor of provisional seizure to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of preserving the execution.

See Supreme Court Order 94Ma417 dated November 29, 1994, etc., a disposal contrary to provisional seizure is invalid in relation to the creditor of provisional seizure, where the creditor of provisional seizure executes compulsory execution upon receiving a judgment on the merits after provisional seizure.