Applicant

Respondent 1 and four others (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. All of the instant applications filed against the respondent are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

With respect to the case of applying for provisional seizure against claim between the claimant and the respondent, the Daegu District Court Decision 2007Kadan5854 rendered on March 28, 2007 revoked the provisional seizure order against the third obligor on the claim listed in the separate sheet (the applicant primarily seeks revocation of the provisional seizure order against the third obligor listed in the separate sheet (the respondent in the judgment of the Supreme Court), 6,319,465 won, and 13,028,411 won, 14,331,252 won, 252 won, 3 (the respondent in the judgment of the Supreme Court) of the respondent, 3 (the respondent in the judgment of the Supreme Court) of the respondent (the respondent in the judgment of the Supreme Court 2), 4,352,951 won, and Respondent Co., Ltd.'s 4,333,380 won, and this does not constitute a separate claim in the preliminary lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records, the respondent's claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 93,681,071 against the applicant as the preserved right and the respondent's claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 93,681,071 against the applicant is proved to have received the provisional seizure order of KRW 93,681,00 which the applicant holds against the Republic of Korea as Daegu District Court No. 2005Kadan7854, March 28, 2007, and the provisional seizure order of KRW 2,33,465, the provisional seizure order of the respondent was approved. The respondent's provisional seizure order of KRW 6,319,465, the respondent's provisional seizure order of KRW 8,352,951, which the applicant has against the Republic of Korea, and the provisional seizure order of KRW 93,65, and the respondent's provisional seizure order of KRW 8,352,951, respectively, shall be revoked and dismissed within 14, respectively.

2. Determination on the assertion to revoke changes in circumstances

A. Applicant's assertion

(1) In the case of claiming unjust enrichment between the claimant and the respondent, the Daegu District Court 2007Kadan380666, the lawsuit on the merits of the instant case, the said court rendered a judgment on February 18, 2009 that only 46,365,459 won of the above provisional attachment claims should be transferred to the respondent to the respondent, and the lawsuit is pending in the appellate court because only the applicant is dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed to the Daegu High Court 2009Na2409, the above judgment did not order monetary payment, but ordered transfer of the provisional attachment claims of this case. Thus, the above judgment should be revoked because there was a change in circumstances in the preserved right under the above provisional attachment decision on the premise of monetary payment obligation.

(2) Although the change in the circumstances of the entire right to be preserved for household affairs is not recognized, since only the applicant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance court on the merits, there is no room to change the above judgment in the higher court to be favorable to the respondent, and even if the respondent takes a preservative measure by means of provisional disposal of claims against the instant provisional attachment claims, it cannot exceed KRW 46,365,459, as cited in the judgment of the first instance, and thus, the provisional attachment order of the instant claim against the portion exceeding KRW 46,365,459, as the preserved right has ceased to exist, the provisional attachment order of the instant claim

B. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking into account the records and the facts revealed in the court, the Daegu District Court 2007Da38066 decided February 18, 2009 filed by the respondent against the applicant for unjust enrichment, the above court rendered a judgment of 13,028,411 won among the claim for dividend payment of KRW 93,681,07, which the above court received in the distribution procedure, to the respondent 2, 3,14,31,252 won to the respondent 3,4,33,380 won to the respondent 3,4,33,380 won claim for dividend payment to the non-party in the Republic of Korea (other than the Seoul District Court 200,319,465 won claim for dividend payment to the non-party in the above respondent, but the above judgment of 10,382,450 won was delivered to the non-party in the above appellate court to the non-party 2,400 won claim for dividend payment to the non-party 9.

(2) First, each of the above judgments does not order a monetary payment obligation, but orders a transfer of the instant provisional seizure claim. Thus, as to the assertion that there was a change in the situation in the preserved right under the above provisional seizure decision premised on a monetary payment obligation, each of the above judgments orders the applicant to notify the respondent of the transfer of the right to request deposit payment and the transfer of the assignment of the claim, under the premise of the obligation to return unjust enrichment against the respondent, and there is no reason to deem that the preserved right under the above provisional seizure decision has been extinguished or altered, the above assertion by

(3) We examine the claim that the provisional attachment order of this case against the portion exceeding 46,365,459 won among the preserved rights has expired, and thus the claim that the provisional attachment order of this case has to be revoked on the ground of change of circumstances. On March 19, 2009, the provisional attachment order of the respondent 2, 3, and Mebank Co., Ltd. among the above provisional attachment order of the Daegu District Court 2007Kadan8498 was approved, and the provisional attachment order of the respondent 6,319,465 won and the provisional attachment order of the respondent 4 was approved within the scope of KRW 8,352,951, respectively. The provisional attachment order of the respondent 6,319,465 won and the provisional attachment order of the respondent 4 was revoked, and the above provisional attachment order of the respondent 1,452,951 won was finalized on the ground that the above provisional attachment order of this case had already been revoked at that time.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the petition of this case against the respondent is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jin-jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ok