[1] In a case where a provisional attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional injunction is imposed on the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer, whether an obligor may file a lawsuit against a third party obligor for the performance thereof (affirmative), and whether the court has accepted the case (i.e., acceptance on the condition of cancellation of provisional attachment)

[2] Whether provisional disposition takes precedence over provisional disposition in case where provisional disposition against the right to claim the transfer of ownership is made after the provisional disposition is made (negative)

[3] Whether the provisional seizure has the effect of prohibiting the disposal of the provisional seizure which was made after the provisional seizure was made after the decision (negative)

[1] A seizure or provisional seizure against the right to claim ownership transfer registration is not against a claim, but against a debtor and a third debtor, and there is no way to publicly announce such decision in the register under the current law, in addition to delivering the decision to the debtor and the third debtor. Thus, the seizure or provisional seizure is effective only between the creditor, the debtor and the third debtor, and it cannot claim the effect of prohibition of disposal of the seizure or provisional seizure. Thus, the seizure or provisional seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer registration does not have the effect of prohibition of disposal of the real estate itself which is the object of the right to claim, and even if a provisional seizure against a claim is made against a third debtor, the debtor may file a lawsuit seeking performance against the third debtor, and the court may not dismiss it on the ground that the provisional seizure is already made. However, the judgment ordering the transfer registration cannot be seen as having been made unilaterally by the debtor and the third debtor cannot be viewed as having been rejected, and in such case, the court should not order the execution of provisional disposition only on the condition that the provisional seizure is cancelled.

[2] Even if there is a provisional disposition prior to the provisional attachment against the right to claim ownership transfer registration, the provisional attachment is valid in relation to the provisional disposition creditor, since it takes precedence over the provisional attachment effected subsequent to the provisional disposition.

[3] The provisional seizure cannot claim the effect of prohibition of disposal of provisional seizure which was made subsequent to the prior decision of the provisional seizure.

[1] Articles 557, 577, 696, and 714 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 577, 714, and 719 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Da2267 delivered on September 27, 198 (Gong1988, 1313), Supreme Court Decision 88Meu648 delivered on May 9, 198 (Gong1989, 895), Supreme Court Decision 88Da25038 delivered on November 24, 1989 (Gong1990, 112), Supreme Court Decision 92Da4680 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong193, 72), Supreme Court Decision 94Da32610 delivered on January 24, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1131), Supreme Court Decision 97Da539389 delivered on April 13, 198 (Gong1993, 194, 199)

Plaintiff

The receiver of Hanyang Co., Ltd.

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na3985 delivered on July 22, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below, based on its evidence, concluded a contract for the sale of the apartment of this case from Hanyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party Co., Ltd.) on October 7, 191 to purchase 16,000 won on the provisional attachment. On July 28, 1994, the plaintiff purchased the above apartment from the non-party No. 120,000 won, and on September 13, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party Co., Ltd. (the non-party No. 4 of this case's provisional attachment No. 9 of this case's provisional attachment No. 9 of this case's provisional attachment No. 9 of this case's provisional attachment No. 99 of this case's provisional attachment No. 99 of this case's provisional attachment No. 9 of this case's provisional attachment No. 99 of this case's claim against the non-party Co. 1's non-party Co., Ltd.'s claim for the provisional attachment No.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)