The conflict between the prohibition of transfer of possession and the enforcement of provisional disposition, which conflict with each other, and remedies therefor.

If the debtor Gap's possession of the building was unclaimed and kept in the office of the month after the execution of the provisional injunction (the first provisional injunction) which permits Gap to use the building at Gap's request, and after the execution of the provisional injunction (the first provisional injunction), the debtor Eul's possession of the case debtor Eul and the second provisional injunction (the second provisional injunction) which permits Eul to use it is re-execution of the second provisional injunction (the second provisional injunction), the two provisional dispositions are contradictory to each other within the limit permitted to use the same building, so the execution of the second provisional injunction is not possible, and the first provisional injunction creditor may file a lawsuit of objection against a third party pursuant to the substantive law, and may seek the exclusion of the second provisional injunction execution as an objection to the execution method.

Articles 504, 509, and 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 80Ra147 Dated January 23, 1981

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined together with the first and third points.

The substantive reason, such as whether the Seoul Trust Bank, the execution creditor of this case, has invalidated the registration title as the owner of the building of this case, or even if not, whether the registration title as the owner of the building of this case had been transferred to a third party after obtaining the registration title as the owner of the debt title of the building of this case, cannot be viewed as a ground for preventing the execution by asserting in an objection against the execution method.

The second re-appeal is examined.

If the debtor's possession of the building is cut off and the provisional disposition prohibiting the possession or transfer of the building is executed at the debtor's request, and the debtor's possession is cut off and the building is stored in the owner of the same building in the separate provisional disposition application case between the other parties, and then the provisional disposition prohibiting the possession or transfer of the building is enforced again (the second provisional disposition) allowing the debtor to use it, the two provisional dispositions are inconsistent with each other to the extent that each other permits the use of the same building even if different parties, and in such case, the execution of the second provisional disposition is rejected. In this case, the creditor of the first provisional disposition can file a lawsuit on the basis of the substantive right under the substantive law, or can seek the exclusion of the second provisional disposition as an objection to the method of execution without resorting to the different opinions.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)