[1] Whether the suspension of execution against the judgment of provisional disposition is allowed (negative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that suspension of execution of provisional disposition against infringement of patent right, etc. is not allowed

[1] Even if there is an objection against the decision of provisional disposition, and the decision of provisional disposition is likely to be revoked or altered in the future, it shall not be allowed to suspend the execution of the decision of provisional disposition, in principle, unless the specific contents of provisional disposition are limited to the scope of the preservation of rights, and it is likely that the contents of the rights or legal relations, which are the subject matter of the lawsuit, be satisfied with the same nationality as those of the execution of the rights or legal relations, and it is likely

[2] The case holding that suspension of execution of provisional disposition against infringement of patent right, etc. is not allowed

[1] Articles 473, 474, and 714 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 473, 474, and 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 63Ka10 Dated September 21, 1963 (No. 11-2, 148), Supreme Court Order 86Ma908 Dated December 19, 1986 (Gong1987, 355) dated March 6, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1696), Supreme Court Order 96Da5 Dated April 24, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1581), Supreme Court Order 97Da7 Dated March 19, 197 (Gong197, 1167)

Seoul Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 2002Kala931 dated March 21, 2002

The order of the court below is reversed. All applications are dismissed.

1. The court below found that the Suwon District Court accepted the application of a special appellant, and decided on November 22, 2001 that the execution of the above provisional disposition shall be suspended until the judgment of the court on the provisional disposition of prohibition of infringement on patent rights, etc. was rendered. The court below determined that the application of the applicant seeking suspension of execution of provisional disposition on the combined type purification tank installed in the factory, the head office of the Hannam Co., Ltd., the Jinyang Co., Ltd., the Jinyang Industry, the Nonparty (hereinafter referred to as the "applicants") and the non-party (hereinafter referred to as "the following") and the combined type purification tank installed in the factory, and on the purification tank manufactured by using it was reasonable.

2. However, even if there is an objection against the decision of provisional disposition, and the decision of provisional disposition is likely to be revoked or altered in the future, the suspension of execution of the judgment of provisional disposition, in principle, shall not be permitted unless the specific contents of provisional disposition are limited to the scope of the preservation of rights, and it is likely that the contents of the rights or legal relations, which are the subject matter of lawsuit, will obtain the final satisfaction of the same as those of the execution of rights or legal relations, and it would cause irreparable damages to the debtor (see Supreme Court Order 97Do7, Mar. 19, 197).

In this case, the special appellant filed an application against the applicant for a provisional disposition claiming the prohibition of infringement on the right by making the claim against the applicant for a prohibition of infringement on the right under the Patent Act and the Utility Model Act as the preserved right, and the Suwon District Court cited it and decided to prohibit infringement on the patent right, etc. The contents of the provisional disposition are merely prohibiting the debtor from disposing of the sex equipment, etc. of the septic tank and keeping it in the execution officer in order to prevent infringement on the patent right and the utility model right. The contents of the provisional disposition are nothing more than requiring the debtor to keep the execution officer with the same nationality as the contents of the right or legal relation, which is the object of the lawsuit, and thus, the execution

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the suspension of execution of the provisional disposition decision, which accepted the application of the applicants and ordered the suspension of execution of the provisional disposition decision, and thereby ordered the suspension of execution of the provisional disposition which is not allowed. The grounds for reappeal pointing

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, but this case is sufficient for this court to judge, and the applicant's application cannot be accepted as seen above, and it is so dismissed in its entirety and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)