1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to the preliminary claim ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where “1.15, 201.15,” written “3 pages 15, 201.15,” and “1.15, 201.15,” thereby citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Since the judgment against the defendant in the lawsuit on the merits of this case becomes final and conclusive after the execution of the provisional disposition of this case, the execution of the provisional disposition of this case constitutes a tort.

The defendant's assertion had sufficient grounds to believe that the production and sale of the plaintiff's lives seeds other than lives infringed the defendant's plant variety right, and the provisional disposition of this case was filed after winning the court of first instance of the case, so it cannot be deemed that there was intention or negligence on the part of the defendant at the time of the application, and there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant could have known that there was no legal basis for the provisional disposition of this case even after the judgment of

Judgment

Although preservative measures, such as provisional attachment or provisional disposition, regarding the period until the date the judgment of the appellate court on the merits of the instant case is executed by the court, the existence of substantive claims shall be entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits and shall be subject to the creditor's responsibility by the vindication, so if the execution creditor after the execution becomes final and conclusive in the lawsuit on the merits of the instant case, it shall be presumed that the execution creditor had intention or negligence with respect to the damage incurred by the debtor due to the execution of the preservative measure, unless there is any special counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da8453, Sept. 25, 1992; 2012Da34764, Aug. 23, 2012). However, if there is any special counter-proof, the presumption of intention or negligence by the execution creditor may be reversed

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31033 Decided April 26, 2007). Each of the above evidence is presented.