The need for the preservation in the disposition of the store name;

In the case that the respondent is seeking the transfer of possession of the store, it is sufficient for the respondent to make a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession, and even if the respondent is unable to pay compensation for the damages due to the rent, it is reasonable to view that there is no need to preserve the store's name when considering the fact that the principal lawsuit of the name of the store is pending and there is a special clause on the penalty.

Article 697 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 715 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 718 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 1428Da133 delivered on September 22, 1955, Supreme Court Decision 4910 delivered on September 22, 1955, Supreme Court Decision 3Da1100 delivered on July 2, 198, Supreme Court Decision 3Da17 delivered on July 2, 200, and Supreme Court Decision

Applicant

Respondent

Busan District Court (80Ka13198)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The respondent shall be released from the possession of the store in the attached list of the respondent and shall order the head of the office belonging to the Busan District Court entrusted by the applicant to keep it.

It shall be permitted to use the above store on the condition that the applicant does not transfer the possession to another person.

such purport shall be publicly notified in an appropriate manner.

The judgment that the respondent is responsible for the filing cost.

The original judgment shall be revoked and the same as the purport of the application.

First, I examine the right to be preserved.

On February 29, 1980, when an applicant concludes a sales contract with the respondent to sell 93,00,000 won for the above Respondent's right to use the store stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter in this case), 10,000 won shall be paid until April 15 of the same year and 53,00,000 won out of the remainder shall be paid five times as installments between June 15 of the same year and January 15, 1981. The remaining 30,00,000 won shall be paid to the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's 210,0,0,00000000,0000000,0000000, and Respondent's Respondent'

The respondent, the original applicant and 4 were registered as the licensee of the store's right to use the store of this case, which is the owner of the store of this case. The applicant is not the licensee of this case from the original date, and even if the applicant purchased the right to use the store from 4 other than the applicant for this case and transferred the right to use the loan of this case to 5 future, 193 through 195 out of this case's store, the applicant was the licensee of this case's right to use the loan of this case, and the applicant concluded the sales contract of this case by deceiving the respondent as if the applicant was the owner of the whole store of this case. Thus, the applicant's assertion that the above 30-party's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this 193 to 30-19, the applicant's loan of this case's loan of this No.

In addition, the respondent does not possess a store at present, so the respondent's assertion that the right to request for evacuation based on the above special agreement against the respondent is impossible performance, but part of the testimony (except the above trusted part) of non-party 2 of the original trial witness's non-party 1 and the defendant's testimony (except the above trusted part) is insufficient to recognize the above assertion without trust, and it is not sufficient to prove it otherwise, and there is no other vindication to acknowledge it, and rather, there is no dispute over the establishment, and according to each statement of No. 14, 15, and No. 13 of the same lawsuit No. 14, No. 13 of this case, which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony between the witness and the above witness and non-party 7 of the trial witness's request for testimony, the respondent can not accept the above assertion since it can be seen that the respondent obtained the business registration certificate for the store and obtained the name other than his father's non-party 2, his father, and

Thus, due to the Respondent's violation, the Respondent has the right to request the Respondent to order the order of the store. Therefore, the existence of the right to preserve the case is affirmed.

Then, we examine the necessity of conservation.

The Respondent is trying to move to the store of this case and if the Respondent leases the store to another, he can receive rent of 1,500,000 won per month. However, even if the Respondent does not own funds and won in the future, even if the Respondent does not win the claim for damages, the Respondent does not have any possibility of enforcement, and the Claimant's payment of the above credit safe loan with monthly bonds is likely to lose his right to this case due to the exercise of the above credit safe's security right if the Respondent does not immediately recover the occupancy of the above credit safe's loan. Therefore, it is difficult for the Respondent to find that the Respondent is able to move to the store of this case, and it is difficult for the Respondent to find that there is no evidence to find that the Respondent is able to claim damages from the above Respondent due to the reason that there is no possibility that the Respondent's claim for damages can be established by the Respondent and the Respondent's claim for damages from the above Respondent's present 200th of the above claim for damages.

Therefore, the application for provisional disposition in this case is without merit, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and without merit, and the appeal by the applicant is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges fixed-name (Presiding Judge) Engines