The case holding that the application for provisional disposition does not fall under the double lawsuit and the right of action is abused.

Even in cases where a provisional disposition order is pronounced as a judgment, so long as the same application for provisional disposition has no res judicata effect, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the above application was filed again because it constitutes double lawsuit, and if the applicant fails to execute it for 14 days after receiving the above provisional disposition order and the executory power of the judgment has been lost and the application has reached this case, it cannot be deemed an abuse of right.

Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

Respondent

Intervenor 1 and one other

Daegu District Court of First Instance (74Ka305,584)

The parts concerning a claimant and a respondent in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The person shall be released from possession of the real estate in the attached list of the respondent and the machinery and apparatus listed in the attached list No. 1 and shall have the head of the office belonging to the Daegu District Court entrusted by the applicant keep it in custody.

The Respondent shall be allowed to use it under the condition that it does not alter the phenomenon.

The respondent shall not perform any act of possession, transfer, or other disposal of the above immovables, machinery, or apparatus.

such purport shall be publicly notified in an appropriate manner.

The respondent's appeal against the intervenors is dismissed.

Costs of litigation in the first and second instances between a claimant and a respondent and costs of appeal in respect of participants of the respondent shall be borne by the respondent.

(1) The Respondent shall not use the real estate listed in the Schedule, and the machinery and equipment listed in Schedule 1;

The respondent shall deliver to the applicant the above real estate and description, and the organization.

The judgment to the effect that the applicant must disclose the above purport in an appropriate manner.

(2) The Intervenor’s motion for provisional disposition is dismissed. The Intervenor’s motion for provisional disposition is dismissed. The Intervenor’s possession of the respondent with respect to the machinery and apparatus listed in [Attachment Nos. 2, 3] and shall have the head of the office belonging to the Daegu District Court entrusted by the Intervenor keep it in custody. The Intervenor’s custody should take appropriate measures in order to disclose the custody.

Subject to the condition that the present state of the above goods should not be changed, the respondent may be allowed to use it.

The respondent is entitled to the judgment that he shall not move his possession of the above goods or perform any other act of disposal.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The request of the applicant and the parties concerned shall be dismissed, respectively.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant and the intervenor of the parties concerned.

On October 26, 1973, the respondent filed an application for provisional disposition identical with the application of this case with the Daegu District Court for a provisional disposition against the respondent on December 20, 1973, and filed an appeal by the respondent after being sentenced to a judgment of provisional disposition accepting the application of this case by the above court on December 20, 199, and the applicant filed an application for provisional disposition of this case even though the appellate court is in progress, the applicant is also not entitled to double lawsuit or at least abuse of right of lawsuit. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 7 of this case, even if it is obvious that the judgment of provisional disposition is pronounced, even if the order of provisional disposition is declared, it cannot be said that the above application constitutes double lawsuit, and since the applicant fails to execute it for 14 days after receiving the above provisional disposition judgment, and it becomes clear that the application has become void due to the lack of executory power of this case, the respondent's allegation is groundless. Therefore, this ground for appeal is groundless.

Therefore, with respect to the right to be preserved by the applicants and intervenors, the above 1, 2, 3-1, 6-7, 7, 10, 12, and 13-1, 7, 10, 12, and 13-2, and the testimony of Non-Party 1 of the court below as a whole, the real estate stated in the separate sheet and the machinery stated in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be considered as 30-7, 100, 300, 100, 300, 400, 300, 400, 500, 500, 300, 500, 300, 500, 500, 100, 500, 100, 500, 100, 50, 100, 100, 100, 300, 106, 300, 200.

However, the respondent's purpose of this lease agreement between the respondent and the applicant is to find a factory which has been lost by a successful bid because the respondent continued to operate the above factory and repaid the applicant's obligations, and the applicant intends to operate and operate the above factory and to maintain or increase the value of the property, so it is just an example that the respondent stated the lease term as three months in the contract in this lease for the purpose of realizing the purpose of this trade name. Therefore, it is argued that the lease term of this case has not yet expired as it is a lease without a fixed period of time, but there is no prima facie proof, the above argument is without merit.

In addition, the respondent's legal representative after renting the above factory from October 1, 1971 to November 8, 1973 by investing a huge amount of 77,772,720 won from the date of the above factory lease from the applicant, and the above machinery has changed from new facilities, so it is unfair that the above machinery belongs to the respondent pursuant to the proviso of Article 259 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the application for provisional disposition is unfair, and even if the above assertion is not justified, it is argued that the applicant's provisional disposition of this case cannot be accepted without redeeming the above money or the increased amount of profit corresponding to the above money. Therefore, even if the applicant's claim for provisional disposition of this case is not made against the applicant or the respondent's claim for the above rent, it is clear that the contract for special agreement of No. 3-1 and No. 2-1 of the plaintiff that had been made before the above increase in value due to processing such as repair and repair of the respondent's original machinery is more significant than the value of the machinery.

The Respondent's legal representative argues that the above special agreement was made in accordance with the unilateral request of the Respondent by taking advantage of the Respondent's poor condition, and is null and void as a juristic act which has manifestly lost fairness, but it is not acceptable at the time of the above argument without any justification.

Therefore, the applicant's objection is that the above factory has the right to be preserved with respect to the site building, and the machinery, equipment, and equipment listed in the attached Table 1, but the applicant has the right to be preserved with respect to the machinery, equipment, and equipment listed in the attached Table 2, 3, but the attached Table 2, 2, 3, the machinery, and equipment were owned by the intervenor and they were returned to the intervenor that there is no right to be preserved with respect to them, and the intervenor's objection

Furthermore, on the need for conservation, health expenses;

The applicant's attorney, on the grounds of the necessity of this case's disposition, when the applicant disposes of the above factory to the respondent at the time of leasing the above factory to the other party, the lease contract is cancelled at the same time as the disposition, and the respondent decided to promptly issue the object to the applicant;

The Respondent did not sell the above factory to Nonparty 2 on August 6, 1973 and the Respondent did not deliver it to the Respondent. The Respondent did not use the prohibited machinery and apparatus's facilities without permission, and even take them out of the factory. On January 26, 1974, the Respondent did not have the right to request the above Respondent's use of the machinery and equipment as well as the Respondent's removal of the machinery and equipment within the above factory until the date when the machinery and equipment were destroyed. In light of these circumstances, the Respondent's request for the above Respondent's use of the equipment and the Respondent's right to request the above Respondent's use of the equipment and the Respondent's use of the equipment and the Respondent's use of the equipment, and the Respondent's use of the equipment and the Respondent's use of the Respondent's right to request the above Respondent's use of the equipment and the Respondent's use of the equipment and the Respondent's use of the equipment without permission.

Therefore, the petitioner's objection is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the intervenor's application shall be accepted as it is with merit, and since the part concerning the petitioner and the respondent among the original judgment is unfair, this conclusion is altered and the respondent's appeal against the above intervenors is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 95, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)