Where a lawsuit on the merits has been filed in accordance with the order to file a lawsuit on the merits of provisional seizure and the withdrawal of the lawsuit has been deemed to have been filed within the period for filing the lawsuit.

Although the respondent filed a claim for damages as a lawsuit on the merits of the provisional seizure case in accordance with the order to file a lawsuit on the merits of the case, if the above lawsuit had been absent on two times during the date of pleading and thus the withdrawal of the lawsuit has been made, it is reasonable to deem that the respondent did not file a lawsuit on the merits within the period of filing the lawsuit, and even if not, it is difficult to deem that the respondent has an intention to preserve his/her claim for damages by the above provisional seizure

Article 705 of the Civil Procedure Act

Park Jae-in

Dried scrap metal

1. The provisional attachment decision made on February 17, 1993 between a party member and the respondent shall be revoked as to the provisional attachment case of real estate No. 93Kadan7302; and

2. Costs of application shall be borne by the respondent;

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The applicant asserts as follows as the grounds for the instant application.

A. In order to preserve the Respondent’s right to claim damages of KRW 20,000,000 against the Respondent, a party member made a provisional attachment decision as to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Respondent upon the request of the Respondent.

B. After that, upon the request of the applicant, the party member ordered the Respondent to file a lawsuit on June 21, 1993 (the above order to file a lawsuit was served on the Respondent on June 25, 1993, and the period of filing the lawsuit was seven days from the above service date). Accordingly, the Respondent filed a lawsuit for damages as the party member 93da27426 against the applicant on June 30, 1993 as the principal lawsuit on the provisional attachment case. While the above lawsuit is pending, the Respondent (the plaintiff of the lawsuit in question) was absent on two occasions at the date of pleading, the lawsuit was withdrawn on October 8, 1993.

2. The above argument of the applicant is deemed to have been led by the respondent under Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. If so, it is reasonable to view that the respondent has not filed a lawsuit on the merits within the period of filing a lawsuit set by the party members due to the withdrawal of the lawsuit on the merits, and even if not, the respondent has no intention to preserve his claim for damages by the above provisional seizure. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the respondent has an intention to preserve his claim for damages by the above provisional seizure. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting

Judges Min Il-young