(a) Whether the effect of provisional seizure against the right to claim for ownership transfer registration pursuant to the occupancy contract under the Industrial Complex Management Act may be binding on the debtor's disposition regarding the occupancy contract which is the cause of the right to claim for registration (negative);

(b) The case holding that the agreement that the occupancy contract had not been concluded upon the application for repurchase by the occupant enterprise after concluding the occupancy contract under the Industrial Complex Management Act is valid as the rescission of the contract; and

A. A provisional seizure of a claim is an order for prohibition of payment to a third party debtor, so it is impossible to extinguish or reduce a claim, and it cannot be asserted against a creditor with such facts. However, the effect of provisional seizure against a third party debtor's right to claim for registration of transfer of real estate pursuant to an occupancy contract under the Industrial Complex Management Act (Abolition by Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act, Act No. 4212, Jan. 13, 1990) on the third party debtor is limited to the right to claim registration, but it cannot be bound by the debtor's disposition against the above occupancy contract, which is the cause of the right to claim registration.

(b) The case holding that the agreement that no contract for occupancy has been concluded even though an application for repurchase by an occupant enterprise cannot be deemed a legitimate application under Article 12 of the Industrial Complex Management Act after concluding an occupancy contract under the Industrial Complex Management Act is valid as a termination of the contract;

(a) Industrial complex Management Act (repealed by the Act on Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment, Act No. 4212, Jan. 13, 1990), Articles 557, 696/b) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 12 and 16 of the Industrial Complex Management Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Meu508 Decided October 26, 1982 (Gong1983,61)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Export Industry Corporation, an incorporated association, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na1839 delivered on July 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

1. A provisional attachment of a claim is a non-payment order against a third party obligor, so it is impossible to extinguish or reduce a claim, and it cannot be asserted against a creditor with such facts, or it is not effective to detain a debtor's disposal of the legal relationship which is the cause of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu508, Oct. 26, 1982).

Therefore, the court below is justified in holding that provisional seizure against the defendant of the Hyundai Electronic Industry, the plaintiff's right to claim registration of transfer of real estate against the defendant of the Hyundai Electronic Industry, only has the right to claim registration itself, and it cannot be bound by the debtor's disposition regarding the occupancy contract of this case, the cause of the right to claim registration.

2. If the non-party company entered into an occupancy agreement with the defendant regarding the real estate in this case under the Industrial Complex Management Act and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, as determined by the court below, and the non-party company did not commence the construction of a factory, etc. for a period exceeding the period under Articles 15 (1) 1 and 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the defendant did not enter into an occupancy agreement with the defendant at any time, upon filing an application for repurchase under Article 12 of the illegal act with the defendant, and if the non-party company did not enter into an occupancy agreement with the defendant, and the defendant fully paid the sale price, etc. to the non-party company, the non-party company which did not complete the registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate in this case cannot be deemed as a legitimate application under Article 12 of the above Act, even if the non-party company's application for repurchase which did not complete the registration of ownership transfer was not a contract cancellation, and it cannot be deemed as a violation of the above law

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Articles 12 and 16.

With respect to the second ground:

Based on its reasoning, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party company applied for the redemption of the real estate of this case to the defendant in order to prevent the plaintiff from securing his claim, and the defendant also actively participated in the act of breach of trust of the above company and revoked the above occupancy contract. Thus, in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of law of law by finding out the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. All of the arguments are groundless.

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 Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)