Whether a transferee of a preservative measure is eligible to file an application for revocation of the preservative measure due to changes in circumstances (affirmative), and whether a creditor against such transferee constitutes an interested party provided for in the latter part of Article 288(1) of the Civil Execution Act (affirmative)

After a preservative measure has been executed, the transferee of the object of the preservative measure, who has acquired a real right against the preservative measure, has the eligibility to file an application for cancellation of the preservative measure due to changes in circumstances pursuant to Article 288 of the Civil Execution Act, and the obligee against such transferee is an interested party after Article 288(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

Article 288 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Order 2010Ma818 Decided August 26, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1859)

Korea

Respondent (Attorney Lee In-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Order 2014Ra60 dated July 24, 2014

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

After a preservative measure has been executed, the transferee of the object subject to the preservative measure is entitled to file an application for cancellation of the preservative measure due to changes in circumstances pursuant to Article 288 of the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Order 2010Ma818, Aug. 26, 2010, etc.). The obligee against such transferee is an interested party after the latter part of Article 288(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the applicant, as a special successor who succeeded to part of the real estate in this case, can seek revocation of the provisional seizure made in this case against the re-appellant, and as a national tax creditor against the applicant, etc., can seek revocation of the provisional seizure as a party interested in the latter part of Article 288(1) of the Civil Execution

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the applicant for revocation of a preservative measure or the interested party in the latter part of Article 288(1) of the

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)