Where a preceding provisional disposition is partially null and void, the validity of the subsequent provisional disposition

Even if there is a provisional disposition on all of the immovables, if the right to be preserved is recognized only for the part of the immovables at the time of such provisional disposition, the provisional disposition on the part without the right to be preserved is null and void. Thus, even if a person who received a new provisional disposition on the part of such immovables after such provisional disposition, even though he received a new provisional disposition on the part of such immovables, he/she may oppose the previous provisional disposition by his/her own provisional disposition unless his/her right to be preserved conflicts with the right to be preserved by the person subject to such provisional disposition, and even if he/she acquired all of his/her right to

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 84Ma7 decided Apr. 16, 1984 (Gong1984, 1015) 93Da20870 decided Jul. 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2279)

Attorney Park Nam-nam, Counsel for the applicant 1 and 55 others

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the respondent 1 and 18 others

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na15603 delivered on September 22, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements) are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to recognizing the fact that the respondent purchased each shop part of the building of this case from the non-party friendly interest business corporation, and therefore the respondent has no right to file a provisional disposition on the premise of the opposing fact cannot be accepted. The argument that the respondent does not have any right to file a provisional disposition on the premise of

2. On the second ground for appeal

In addition, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rejection of the claimant's assertion that the applicant received the provisional disposition of this case as a representative of 216 persons who received the confirmation of the legitimate buyer from the above non-party company.

3. On the third ground for appeal

Even if there is a provisional disposition on the whole of a real estate, if the right to be preserved is recognized only for the part of such real estate at the time of such provisional disposition, the provisional disposition on the part without the right to be preserved is null and void. Thus, even if a person who received a new provisional disposition on the part of such real estate after such provisional disposition, even though he/she received a new provisional disposition on the part of such real estate, he/she may oppose the previous provisional disposition with his/her own right to be preserved unless the right to be preserved conflicts with the right to be preserved by the previous provisional disposition, and even if he/she acquired the entire right to such real estate

Therefore, the court below found that when the sales contract for each shop of the building of this case was made for the non-party company and the number of buyers, if the cadastral record of the land of this case is adjusted later between the above company and the non-party company and the number of buyers, they agreed on the land of this case to allow each buyer to register the ownership of this case's share equivalent to the unit area of the building of this case, the preserved right of the applicants is limited to the applicant's right to claim the registration of ownership transfer of a party's share equivalent to the unit area of the building of this case's whole area. Thus, even if the applicant has received the provisional disposition as to the whole land of this case, the provisional disposition is null and void, and therefore the respondent's disposition of prohibition of disposal, which the respondent received part of the remaining part of the land of this case's land other than the applicant's share, and even if the applicants have completed the registration of ownership transfer after the provisional disposition of the respondent, it does not conflict with the provisional disposition of this case's whole land of this case.

4. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)