In the lawsuit on the merits of a provisional disposition, the case where the applicant for the provisional disposition loses for substantive reasons and the change in the situation under Articles 715 and 706

In the case of a provisional disposition against the person who applied for the provisional disposition in the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition, there is a change in the circumstances in this article, and in the case of a provisional disposition, the usefulness of the lawsuit on the merits cannot be allowed.

Articles 706 and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act

Gambling machine money

East Military Service Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 62Ka169 delivered on May 24, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal by the appellant, the attorney-at-law, and the Lee Jong-chul are examined.

However, if the facts of the application for provisional disposition in the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition have been lost on the substantive grounds, there is a change in the so-called "the Civil Procedure Act" Article 715 and Article 706 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the usefulness of the lawsuit on the merits cannot be permitted.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, 384, Paragraph 1, and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, all of the participating judges except for the red leapul that of the judges of the Supreme Court is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The dissenting opinion of the judges of the Supreme Court is as follows.

In the case of the contract of the certificate 2, the applicant-Appellant asserts that the business relationship begins from the time when the lawsuit between Appellee and the non-party 3rd Co., Ltd. becomes final and conclusive as a winning of Appellee, and when considering that the date when the application of the provisional disposition was filed on July 26, 1961 in the lawsuit between Appellee and the non-party 1.9 of the same year, the date when the Supreme Court rendered a favorable judgment in the case of the lawsuit between the above non-party 1.9 of the same year, the reasons for the application of the provisional disposition of this case (it does not seem to have any difficulties in the entries in the application) has a right to expect that the lawsuit will acquire the right to the mine by contract of the certificate 2, and the Appellee intends to sell the mine to a third party, so it is clear that the right to the respondent of such provisional disposition is not the right to share the mine and the right to expect that a certain fact can be acquired if it occurs in the

Therefore, the judgment of the evidence No. 3 of the lawsuit on the ground that appellant acquired the right to share to the mine in this case due to the above expectation right, cannot be viewed as the right to be preserved in this case itself, and it is clear that the above judgment cannot be viewed as a change of circumstances due to the above judgment after the above provisional disposition, on the ground that "No dispute exists between the defendant and the passenger in the above-mentioned facts that the lawsuit between the defendant and the defendant has become final and conclusive in favor of the defendant, but there is no proof as to the fact that the conditions of the completion of the contract have been determined, and therefore the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer of the right to claim the transfer of the principal lawsuit on the premise that the contract has already been established is groundless."

Therefore, the original judgment, which judged that there was a change in the situation after the provisional disposition on this case, should not be reversed in an unlawful manner.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)