Whether the dispute owned by a third party can be subject to a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the dispute;

The provisional disposition is aimed at preserving a claim aimed at the delivery of a specific object or a specific benefit, so the dispute, which is the object of the claim, can be a compulsory execution to be preserved by the provisional disposition. Therefore, if it is owned by a third party, it can not be the object of the provisional disposition.

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant 1 and 14 others, the party taking over the lawsuit of the deceased Nonparty

Respondent

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na4453 delivered on July 27, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicants.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the applicants.

1. The provisional disposition, like this case, aims to preserve a claim aimed at the delivery of a specific object or a specific benefit, so the dispute, which is the object of the claim, must be a compulsory execution to be preserved by the provisional disposition. Therefore, if it is owned by a third party, it cannot be the object of the provisional disposition. As duly recognized by the court below, if the deceased non-party (the decedent of the applicant) who is the applicant for the provisional disposition of this case has already transferred the right to permit reclamation of public waters (No. 43 of August 26, 198) which is the object of the provisional disposition before the filing of the provisional disposition of this case, the respondent has already transferred the right to permit reclamation of public waters (No. 43 of the Maritime Affairs and Port Office of August 26, 198)

The court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for revocation of provisional disposition, and the judgment of the party member with respect to provisional attachment cited in the arguments is not appropriate to be invoked differently from this case.

In addition, the judgment of the court below regarding whether the respondent had the right to claim the transfer of shares in the land acquired in the public waters reclamation area of this case is merely a assumptive and additional judgment, and its propriety cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment.

All arguments are without merit.

2. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)