The validity of the registration made in the name of a third party on the basis of the registration made in front of the person subrogated after the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposition by subrogation is taken.

In a case where the real estate owned by Gap was sold before and after the transfer to Byung, and had the damage claim based on the final judgment against Byung against Eul for the above real estate by subrogation of Eul and Byung in succession, the right to be preserved for the above provisional disposition is only the preservation of Eul's right to claim the transfer of ownership against Byung, and it does not include the preservation of the damage claim against Byung, and therefore, it is valid regardless of whether Eul's registration acquired from Byung during the course of the lawsuit for claim for transfer registration of ownership against Byung was known that the above provisional disposition had been registered.

Article 404 of the Civil Act, Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1150 Decided November 24, 1970, 72Da1860, 1861 Decided December 12, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 80Da1416 Decided March 22, 1983

Plaintiff Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Msan District Court Decision 86Na4 delivered on July 24, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the judgment below, the court below determined that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the Changwon Machinery and Industry Corporation, but thereafter sold it to the non-party 2 through the non-party 1, and that the plaintiff who had damage claim against the above non-party 2 against the above non-party 2 by subrogation of the above non-party 2 and the non-party 1 in sequential order against the above Corporation, and its purpose was to prevent the above non-party 2 from disposing of the above damage claim against the above non-party 1 in order to preserve its damage claim against the above non-party 1. Thus, even if the above non-party 1 was prohibited from disposing of the above real estate against the above third party 1 in the decision of prohibition of disposal, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 were not included in the non-party 7's claim for provisional disposition, and therefore, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim for ownership transfer registration cannot be viewed as null and void, regardless of the above non-party 1's claim for ownership transfer registration.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)