The scope of judgment in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of provisional disposition due to change of circumstances.

In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of provisional disposition by change of circumstances, it is not necessary to judge whether the right to be preserved or not is necessary to preserve, and it is sufficient to judge whether the revocation of provisional disposition is changed or not.

Articles 706 and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294 civilianSang134 Delivered on November 23, 1961

Appellant Kim-ban et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Appellee et al. and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na4484 delivered on July 21, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's attorney are examined.

1. In a lawsuit seeking a revocation of provisional disposition on the ground of a change of circumstances, it is not necessary to determine the existence of the substantive right to be compensated by the provisional disposition or the existence of the reason for the revocation of provisional disposition, and it is sufficient to determine the existence or absence of the reason for the revocation of provisional disposition, and the decision of the court below is just in holding that the ground for revocation of provisional disposition due to a change of circumstances can not be a reason for the revocation of provisional disposition even if it can be a ground for objection against the provisional disposition, and there is no violation of the Constitution or law such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the precedents of the party members cited in the arguments (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da842 delivered on January 31, 1968). Therefore, the decision of the court below cannot adopt a question that it conflicts with the above precedents.

2. It is clear that the judgment of the court below does not fall under any of the causes stipulated in Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal, in which the court below erred in the misapprehension of the applicant's assertion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)