2005 business group2134 For provisional seizure

OO

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

DD

Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Gi-gu et al.

April 10, 2006

1. On December 6, 2002, with respect to provisional seizure cases against immovables between the above parties, this Court shall revoke the provisional seizure order issued by this Court as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet on December 6, 2002.

2. The creditor's request for provisional seizure is dismissed;

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the creditor.

Creditors: Authorization of the provisional seizure order mentioned in paragraph (1) above.

The debtor: It is so ordered as per Disposition.

1. The fact that the creditor of the decision of provisional seizure filed a lawsuit of divorce, etc. against the debtor as the court 2002dhap6180, applying for provisional seizure of each real estate listed in the separate sheet as the preserved right by designating the claim of consolation money as the preserved right, and this court accepted it by this court, and made a provisional seizure decision as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 as of December 6, 2002 (hereinafter the provisional seizure decision of this case)

of this chapter.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the overall purport of the record and examination of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. From spring of spring of 1974, the debtor served as a nurse at Auniversity affiliate hospital, and was working as a nurse at the same hospital, and had sexual intercourse with the creditor who was working as a doctor at the same hospital. However, as a matter of course, the debtor, as a matter of course, had already been reported on June 12, 1973 by the creditor, who was known to the general public, filed a marriage report with the creditor and the debtor on June 12, 1973, and the procedures for investigating the creditor and the debtor were in progress after filing a complaint with the creditor and the debtor as a crime of adultery. Upon completion of the process agreed with B, the creditor and the creditor agreed with B

B The debtor began to live together with the creditor and got married as the debtor continues to be able to proceed with the divorce with B.

B. After the marriage registration, the obligor had been considered to have a certified copy of the obligee’s family register for the report of marriage. The obligee had a son between B and B, and C had known the fact that C is being brought up at the obligee’s family registry. However, the obligor was able to take care of this situation under the name and trust of the obligee. The obligee filed a marriage report with the obligor on May 23, 1978, and corrected the family registry to be registered in an infertility between C and the obligor for the future of July 6, 1978.

C. The debtor has given birth to C on September 24, 1980, while growing C as her friendship.

D. However, the creditor, from around 1980 to the time of opening business of the Sohana Hospital, caused E who entered the hospital as an assistant nurse to take care of his house and continue to have sexual intercourse and reported F on February 23, 1984 in the manner of having given birth to the obligee and the obligor on August 7, 1985. Upon obtaining a certified copy of the family register, the creditor, who became aware of this fact, requested a divorce by asserting that the obligee would not engage in the act of incompetence, but he received the obligee’s request for divorce by asserting that the obligee would not engage in the act of incompetence.

E. Nevertheless, the obligee continued to engage in the act of incompetence with E on May 11, 1987, and again gave birth G to G on March 2, 1988, and on March 2, 198, the husband and wife filed a family register report with E with the obligee and the mother E. The obligor was requested for confirmation of paternity or existence of paternity with respect to F from E around that time. The obligor was again subject to a request for confirmation of paternity or existence of paternity, as a result of re-verification of a family register in the process, confirmed the content of G’s childbirth and the family register registration registration registration that made E with the mother to E (as the above request for confirmation of existence of paternity or existence of paternity became final and conclusive on May 12, 1988, the mother of the family register F was corrected from the obligor to E).

F. The obligor stated that the obligee would liquidate the act of incompetence and return to his family. However, around October 7, 1994, the obligee brought a lawsuit of divorce against the obligor at this court under the jurisdiction of 94dd7375, while participating in the male day, and habitually tried for the obligor. Around October 12, 1994, the obligee suffered injury, such as the incompetence of the left part, the left part, the left part, the left part, etc., where the obligor needs to receive medical treatment for 14 days.

G. On October 28, 1994, the debtor, among felballs, felball, feld, feld, feld, feld, and feld, of the above creditor's action, the creditor and the creditor's marital relationship with the debtor, "H feld" (the former creditor operated the hospital only with the operation of the hospital, and the former creditor operated the H furgium) met once he received the above, and the creditor immediately filed a complaint against the debtor, and the debtor was detained by the debtor. The creditor's refusal of the creditor's proposal to waive the claim of notification at the time of divorce but the agreement or the cancellation of complaint was not made by the debtor, on the ground that the marital relationship between the debtor and the creditor had already been extinguished, the Seoul District Court sentenced on December 22, 1994 to a suspended execution for the debtor in August 1, 198 by imprisonment with labor for the debtor as the Seoul District Court Order 94Mo8258.

H. The debtor is released and then the creditor's counterclaim against the creditor's claim for divorce (No. 94d87287 of this Court)

AB filed a suit and filed a complaint with the obligee and E, but the obligee requested an agreement on February 1995, and the obligee and the obligee agreed to live together with the obligor and the obligee, and both the claim for divorce and the criminal complaint were voluntarily withdrawn.

I. However, the creditor had been living together with the female of J, who is a female living together with H G, who is a female living together with another female, by disregarding the debtor in the future. From around 1996, the creditor operated the limited-type house of "K" as well as the debtor or his/her dependent, in order to raise a large amount of income through the operation of the HJ house and K limited house. The creditor raised a large amount of income through the operation of the HJ house and K limited house, and did not pay the debtor the cost of living with the amount of KRW 1,00,000 per month and KRW 3 and 4 per year, and did not look at the debtor or his/her dependent.

j. The debtor had been aware of the fact that the creditor sold the site and building of HJ house to the debtor at home without any indication on his/her own property around April 2002, when he/she brought up F with a religious belief, and brought up F, he/she settled a life disturbed by the creditor, and returned to home. On the other hand, the debtor was willing to resist the creditor to return to home once again in regard to the voluntary disposal of property. However, upon the creditor's refusal to complete this, the creditor filed a lawsuit against the creditor seeking divorce by the court 2002Dhap5040 on May 3, 2002 and the compensation and division of property arising therefrom.

(k) On May 23, 2002, the creditor filed a counterclaim against the debtor to seek a division of property and a divorce on the ground that he/she destroyed his/her marital life by going through a non-sex religion.

C. On September 24, 2003, the court rendered a judgment that the principal liability of the marriage dissolution between the two parties is to be shared with other women, such as E and J, while continuously living together for not less than 20 years, with the husband and the most liable as the husband, and on the ground that the obligee was erroneous in failing to care for the debtor and F, the obligee pays as consolation money the obligor 50,000,000, property division amounting to 840,000,000, and damages for delay thereof, and dismissed the obligee’s counterclaim claim against the obligor.

m. The creditor appealed to the above judgment as Seoul High Court No. 2003Reu1953 (main lawsuit), No. 2003Reu1960 (Counterclaim), but the creditor and the debtor fully withdrawn the appeal, main lawsuit, and counterclaim on July 3, 2004.

n. The obligee subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking divorce, consolation money, and division of property against the obligee on the ground that not only the grounds alleged in the previous lawsuit against the obligor, but also the obligor, after the withdrawal of the lawsuit, sold the obligor’s property under the condition of withdrawal of the lawsuit, and did not comply with it even though the obligor did not sell the obligee’s property, and that the obligor could not enter the house by means of insulting the obscencies. The obligee brought a lawsuit seeking divorce, consolation money for this reason, and division of property against the obligee. Accordingly, the obligor is currently pending in the lawsuit by filing a counterclaim against the obligee to seek divorce, consolation money for this reason, and division of property.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the cause of the failure of the marriage between the creditor and the debtor is that the creditor living together with other women, such as E and J, for at least 20 years, while living together with the debtor and the F, and the creditor does not take care of the debtor. Thus, the creditor's claim for consolation money against the debtor cannot be deemed to exist on the premise that the debtor is liable for the failure of the marriage.

B. Meanwhile, in a case where it is impossible to file a lawsuit on the merits due to the withdrawal of the lawsuit after the final judgment, the preservative measure has ceased to exist, and thus, it cannot be useful for a separate lawsuit. Therefore, the provisional attachment order of this case cannot be useful for preserving the preserved right in this case, including divorce No. 2005dhap4970, which was instituted by the creditor.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the creditor's application for provisional seizure of this case is not sufficient to vindicate the preserved right and the necessity of preservation, and therefore, it is reasonable to revoke the provisional seizure order of this case and dismiss the creditor's application for provisional seizure. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges, members of the Supreme Court

A person shall be appointed.