The validity of the principal lawsuit and preservative measures filed after the expiration of the period for filing a lawsuit

In the case of a provisional disposition application, even though the applicant did not bring a lawsuit on the merits within the period of filing a lawsuit after receiving the order, if he files a lawsuit on the merits not later than the closing of argument in the case of the application for provisional disposition, the same effect as

Article 705 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea

Respondent 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (74Ka3270) in the first instance trial

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The part of the provisional disposition decision rendered on August 9, 1973 by the above court is revoked with respect to the case of the applicant, non-applicant 1, 2, and respondent and non-party 3, and non-party 4 of the joint respondent of the court below as to the case of the provisional disposition suspending the legal effect effect of the court below 73da10511, the Seoul

(3) The respondent's application for provisional disposition is dismissed in the above case of provisional disposition.

(4) The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the respondent in both the first and second instances.

(5) The above Paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The above judgment and provisional execution declaration

With respect to the provisional disposition case of suspending legal action effect (73da10511) against the respondent and the applicant and non-applicant No. 3 and No. 4 filed by the non-applicant No. 1 and No. 1 and 2, the above court accepted the above provisional disposition application of the respondent and non-applicant No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 and 4 (hereinafter only the respondent) on August 9, 1973, and the Republic of Korea between the respondent and the respondent dismissed the applicants as directors of non-applicant No. 1 and 5 Incorporated Foundation No. 1 and 2, until the main decision on the claim to nullify the act of appointing the above corporation as directors of non-applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 2 became final and conclusive, it is clear that the above court suspended the performance of duties as directors of non-applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 2, a director of non-applicant No. 2, and the above non-party No. 6 and non-party No. 87.

In the case of the above provisional disposition, the respondent (the applicant in the case of the above provisional disposition; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall prove that the respondent did not have the right of representation in the above provisional disposition, and as if the non-applicant 6 did not delegate the above provisional disposition to the above salt salter, he denies the right of representation in the above case, the plaintiff shall be presumed to have denied the right of representation in the above salt heat because he did not recognize that the above respondent's right of representation was forged and entrusted to the above salter. Thus, the above court shall consider and decide the above provisional disposition of the respondent who applied for the above salt heat as the applicant for the above provisional disposition after recognizing that the above right of representation was legitimate. Thus, the applicant who asserts that the above salt heat did not have the right of representation in the above provisional disposition, shall prove that the above applicant did not have the right of representation in the above provisional disposition, and the above applicant cannot be acknowledged by the statement of evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (written complaint, authentication) and evidence Nos. 7-4, 5 (written statement and investigation report).21).

The next claimant asserts that the above court ordered the respondent to file a lawsuit on December 28, 1973 within seven days from the date of receiving the order to file a lawsuit against the respondent on December 29, 1973, and that the respondent filed a lawsuit on January 14, 1974 (the lawsuit to nullify the legal act of 74 Ghana 100 of the above court) on which the above time limit for filing the lawsuit has lapsed, so the above provisional disposition decision should be revoked on the ground of the expiration of the time limit for filing the lawsuit, but even if the petitioner did not file a lawsuit on the merits within the time limit after receiving the order, if the petitioner filed the lawsuit on the merits until the closing of argument in the case of the request for provisional disposition, the lawsuit on the merits has the same effect as the lawsuit on the merits within the time limit for filing the lawsuit, and it is evident that the respondent is the date of closing argument on October 10, 1974 of the above applicant's assertion, and therefore the above claimant's assertion is groundless by the petitioner's own assertion.

In addition, the Respondent asserts that the Respondent's lawsuit filed on January 14, 1974 was terminated on February 22, 1974 as the withdrawal of lawsuit due to the absence of both parties at least two times, and that the change in circumstances to cancel the above provisional disposition order occurred. Thus, according to the evidence No. 4 (Evidence No. 4) without dispute over the establishment, the above lawsuit on the merits can be recognized as the withdrawal of lawsuit due to the absence of both parties on February 15, 1974 and the completion of February 22, 1974. However, unless there are objective circumstances to deem that the waiver of its intention to preserve the lawsuit prior to the final judgment does not constitute a change in circumstances as the grounds for revocation of provisional disposition, and there is no evidence to support that the respondent renounced his intention to preserve the above case in the provisional disposition case due to the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and therefore, the respondent's assertion that the lawsuit filed against the Respondent in the above case of provisional disposition No. 1 (Evidence No. 4) cannot be acknowledged as the above Respondent's. 17197).

The next claimant asserts that the respondent has not filed a lawsuit in accordance with the above order since the respondent has withdrawn all the lawsuits on the merits of the case of preliminary injunction application filed on March 27, 1974 and thereafter, this is the same as that of the respondent. Since the above provisional injunction decision should be revoked, it is clear that the above provisional injunction decision should be stated in the records of Nos. 8, 9 (proving the withdrawal of lawsuit), 10, 11 of the above Class A, the respondent and non-applicant No. 3, 4, 9 raised an objection against the disposition of registration as Seoul Civil District Court No. 74Ma2099, and that the above provisional injunction was withdrawn by the director of the Seoul District Court on June 5, 1974, the court's "No. 16 of the same registry office of Seoul Civil District Court, No. 5 of the Foundation, which received the registration of modification, and the director of the above foundation shall be dismissed from office as of 17th day of the closure of the above provisional injunction."

If so, the withdrawal of the lawsuit shall be the same as that of the first lawsuit, and all the lawsuits against the case of preliminary injunction filed by the respondent shall be withdrawn, and the lawsuit against the case of preliminary injunction shall not continue to be filed, so it shall be deemed that the lawsuit against the above applicant's order to file a lawsuit has not been filed.

Therefore, the applicant's application for the cancellation of the provisional disposition in this case shall be accepted on the ground that it is reasonable, and the original judgment dismissing the applicant's application with different conclusions is unfair, and since the applicant's appeal is well-grounded, the original judgment is revoked, the applicant's application for the provisional disposition shall be revoked, the respondent's application for the provisional disposition shall be revoked, and the respondent's application for the provisional disposition shall be dismissed, and the above provisional disposition shall be dismissed, and the decision shall be delivered with the application of Article 89, Articles 93, 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 716

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)