(a) The nature of appeal against a ruling of provisional seizure or a ruling of dismissal, and its handling methods;

B. Where a decision of provisional seizure is rendered on the ground that the deceased person at the time of the application for provisional seizure is the debtor, the validity thereof and whether the indication of the debtor can be corrected as the inheritor (negative)

(a) No appeal may be filed against a ruling dismissing an application for the decision of provisional attachment or rectification, and since the special appeal stipulated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is only allowed, an appeal must be filed as a special appeal.

B. An application for provisional attachment with a deceased person as an obligor is unlawful and a provisional attachment decision was made pursuant to the above request, but the decision is null and void, and it cannot be deemed that the decision would affect the heir. Therefore, the reason that the debtor had mistakenly indicated that the deceased person should be the heir cannot be deemed to have an obvious error in the decision, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an obvious error in the decision.

(a)Articles 700 and 197 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Order 86Ma895 Dated November 7, 1986 (Gong1987, 222). (B) Supreme Court Decision 82Meu884 Decided October 26, 1982 (Gong1983, 64)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul District Court Order 88Ka5934 dated January 10, 1989

The special appeal is dismissed.

The grounds for special appeal are examined.

The decision to dismiss the request for the provisional attachment and correction of this case cannot file an appeal, and since the special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is only permitted, the case shall be treated as a special appeal.

According to the records, even though the non-applicant's non-applicant's non-applicant's posture was killed on December 11, 1987, the special appellant filed an application for provisional attachment with the court of original judgment on January 21, 198, 502-1,99 square meters prior to the 502-1,96 square meters at the time of the application for provisional attachment, and received the provisional attachment order with the same contents from the court of original judgment on February 1, 1988. Thus, even if the application for provisional attachment with the deceased person as the debtor is illegal and the provisional attachment order was rendered upon the above application, the decision shall be null and void automatically (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu884, Oct. 26, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 1983,64, Oct. 26, 1982). Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is an obvious error in the determination that the debtor had already been mistakenly indicated as the inheritor at the time of the application for provisional attachment.

Thus, the court below's decision that dismissed the application for the decision or rectification of this case is just, and the Supreme Court's decision that points out the theory of lawsuit is different from this case.

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

Justices Lee Jae-ho et al. (Presiding Justice)