(a) The text of the judgment and the actual text of the reasoning for each other are inconsistent;

(b) Where a purchaser of real estate registered for provisional attachment has completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and the creditor of provisional attachment has occupied the real estate illegally, a claim for damages against the third party purchaser against the above creditor;

A. The judgment of the court below acknowledged that the land owned by the defendant among the 12 parcels of the land of this case is a part, and judged that the land of this case owned by the defendant is combined with the land of the part not occupied by the defendant while the defendant is not in possession of the defendant, and that the defendant's access to the whole 12 parcels of this case or does not commit any act interfering with the plaintiffs' use of the above 12 parcels of this case. Furthermore, the decision of the court below which ordered the prohibition of access by the defendant and the prohibition of the plaintiffs' use of the part where the defendant was actually living

(b) Even a third acquisitor of the immovables on which the registration of the provisional attachment decision has been entered, if the provisional attachment obligee illegally occupies such immovables and interferes with the ownership of the third acquisitor, it may claim damages against that obligee.

Article 750 of the Civil Act; Article 394(1)6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (Article 424(1)6 of the current Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2139 delivered on November 1, 1967

(1) The part of the lower judgment on the claim for prohibition of access and interference with use is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(2) The appeal on the claim for damages in the judgment below is dismissed, and the costs of appeal on this part are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground of the claim, according to the facts as to the plaintiffs' claim, the plaintiffs acquired ownership transfer registration for the land at issue in this case [Gangwon-gun (name omitted), No. 390 square meters and 11 square meters] by passing through June 18, 1964, and thus, they do not interfere with the defendant's access to or use of the land by this case. The arguments are as follows: (a) since the plaintiff had been in exclusive possession for a long time before acquiring ownership for this case's land; and (b) the plaintiffs did not control the land under this case's possession; (c) even before acquiring ownership for a long time, the plaintiffs cannot bring a lawsuit against the defendant against the prohibition of access or the prohibition of use interference; (d) the plaintiffs cannot be recruited in light of the legal principles as to the right of real right. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right of possession or possession.

(2) As to the second part of the land at issue in this case, the court below recognized the fact that the part of the land at issue in this case that interferes with the entry of the plaintiffs and the use of the plaintiffs by the defendant is part of the above land (1,333 square meters, 1,691 square meters, and 1,589 square meters). Accordingly, the part of the first part of the court of first instance, which is maintained by the court below, is combined with the land at issue in this case, which is part of the part that is not occupied by the defendant and is not occupied by the defendant, and decided that the defendant access to the defendant or all acts that interfere with the use of the plaintiffs. However, unlike the order of the court of first instance, the part of the land at issue in this case, which is actually occupied by the defendant, is the purport that the defendant orders the prohibition of entry by the defendant and the prohibition of use of the plaintiffs only for the part that is actually occupied by the defendant (However, it is clearly contradictory to what part of the plaintiffs' claims are asserted by the plaintiffs.)

(3) Regarding No. 3.4, even in cases where a third party acquires the ownership of the real estate from the former owner, who is the debtor of the provisional seizure, and completes the registration of ownership transfer, if this creditor of the provisional seizure illegally occupies the above real estate and interferes with the third party's ownership, this third party purchaser may claim damages against the creditor of the provisional seizure. This third party purchaser shall not claim against the creditor of the provisional seizure even if the debtor of the provisional seizure disposes of the real estate to the third party after the provisional seizure registration. However, the third party purchaser of the provisional seizure cannot claim against the creditor of the provisional seizure as the effect of the provisional seizure at the time when the creditor of the provisional seizure becomes subject to compulsory execution. This part of the judgment of the court below as to the provisional seizure's effect should not be asserted as the owner of the real estate, which is the provisional seizure. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the third party purchaser of the provisional seizure cannot claim damages against the creditor of the provisional seizure who illegally occupied the real estate should not be justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of the judgment below's legal principles as to the effect of the provisional seizure.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)