Where it is recognized that there is no right to be preserved by the judgment on the merits, there is an error of decision on provisional disposition.

As long as the principal court which was composed of judges who decided on the application for the prohibition of provisional disposition in this case rendered a judgment on the merits that there is no preserved right as of the same day as the judgment on the case of the above provisional disposition application, it is obvious fact in the court below that the applicant's preserved right in the case of the above provisional disposition is not acceptable.

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Respondent

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na747 delivered on August 9, 1966

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the Respondent’s ground of appeal

According to the records of the case, the applicant is the reason for the application, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 23 who are the husband of the applicant and the respondent enter into a partnership contract with the purport of selling a store on March 4, 1963 and distributing the profit, and although the building was constructed under the partnership contract, the above non-party 1 conspired with the respondent who is the wife and registered the principal house in the name of the defendant to preserve it in the name of the defendant, and sold it to the third party to prevent the claimant from claiming his rights, so the purchaser is in physical color, so the application for provisional disposition is filed to prohibit the disposition. According to the respondent's argument, the contract of the same kind of business as the head of the applicant is revoked with the applicant's non-performance of investment, and it is evident that the above house is the sole ownership of the respondent who has no relations with the above business contract of the applicant, according to the original judgment, the original judgment is the name of the previous suit and its purport of pleading, and the application for provisional disposition prohibition is recognized, thereby maintaining the judgment of provisional disposition.

However, according to the significant facts of party members (the case of ownership transfer registration). The case of the main claim that the applicant is the plaintiff and the respondent must cancel the registration of ownership preservation in the respondent's name of the respondent for the main claim in the case of the application for provisional disposition of this case was continued in the court below (the plaintiff, the plaintiff won the case at the court of first instance but the plaintiff was pending in the court below as the respondent's appeal). The court of original judgment composed of the same judge in the case of the provisional disposition of this case, which judged the case of this case as of the same day as the case of this provisional disposition of this case, it is clear that the above business contract of this case was cancelled the plaintiff's failure to pay investment obligations, and the non-party 1, the husband of the defendant (the respondent of this case) is the plaintiff's husband after the cancellation of the above business contract of this case, and the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant as its main body is rejected.

Thus, as long as the court of original judgment, which was composed of the judges who tried to judge the case of application for provisional disposition, rendered the above principal judgment on the same day as the judgment on the case of provisional disposition, the applicant's right to be preserved in the case of application for provisional disposition in this case, shall not be deemed to be a significant fact at the court of original judgment. Nevertheless, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal evaluation on the fact that the court below accepted the application for provisional disposition in violation of the above substantial fact, and thus, it did not err by misapprehending the legal evaluation on the other

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)