Applicant

Respondent (Law Firm Republic of Korea, Attorneys Kim Yong-Nam, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Order 2014Kadan718 dated May 19, 2014

1. The decision of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The applicant's motion to revoke the provisional disposition of this case is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant.

Purport of application

The decision of provisional disposition made on May 12, 2004 by the above court shall be revoked with respect to the case of the application for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of real estate between the respondent and the applicant in Busan District Court 2004Kadan4319.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The court's reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) each "applicant" in Section 1, Section 20, Section 21 of the Decision of the court of first instance as "Respondent"; (b) each "Performance Hadra" in Section 22 of the same part as "Performance Hadra"; and (c) "B" in Section 2, Section 5, and Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act as "B" in Section 1, Section 2, Section 5, and Section 6 of the same part as "B". On March 14, 2014, the applicant filed an application for the revocation of the decision of provisional disposition of this case on the ground that the need to preserve the decision of provisional disposition of this case ceased to exist on May 19, 2014; and (c) the court added the same reasons as the relevant decision of the court of first instance as stated in the decision of the court of first instance; and (d) thereby, Article 14, Section 15,10,41 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is cited.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Since the provisional disposition of this case still needs to be preserved, the decision of the court of first instance revoking the provisional disposition of this case on the ground that it has been extinguished is unreasonable.

3. Determination

On the other hand, if the creditor of the provisional disposition prevails in the lawsuit of this case and obtains executive titles and does not execute the execution of this case, the necessity of preserving the right to be preserved has ceased. If the necessity of preservation has ceased after the provisional disposition decision, it shall be deemed that there exists a change of situation, which is a reason for not being able to continue such provisional disposition. However, on February 3, 2004, the following circumstances known by the record, i.e., ① the applicant has a ruling of recommending settlement with the respondent on May 31, 1979 that "the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the land of this case shall be implemented on the grounds of sale," and the decision has become final and conclusive on February 26, 200, but it is difficult to say that the respondent did not obtain the above provisional disposition without obtaining the qualification for acquisition of executive titles, and there is no room to acknowledge that the respondent would not obtain the ownership of the land of this case without being able to obtain the qualification of 10 years or 20 years for acquisition of the farmland of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's application for revocation of provisional disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked as the conclusion is unfair, and the applicant's application for revocation of provisional disposition of this case shall be dismissed and it shall be decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)