Even if the case on the merits is pending in the High Court, the collegiate panel of the district court examines the case on the application for provisional disposition.In a judgment, the measure against the case on the merits was appealed to the High Court.

Even though the case of provisional disposition is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Seoul High Court, the judgment of the court below should be revoked and the case should be transferred to the competent court. However, because the provisional disposition case is against the Seoul High Court where the respondent's appeal against the judgment of the court below is pending, the Seoul High Court has revoked the judgment of the court below and makes its own decision.

Articles 717 and 389 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea Electric Power Promotion Corporation, a stock company

Kim Man-Jhan

Seoul Central District Court (78Ka13782) of the first instance court

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

under the condition that the applicant deposits gold 400,000 won as security;

(A) 2, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Eul-ro, 88 ground 7, 13 square meters, 13 square meters, 2-4 square meters, 3-4 square meters, 13-4 square meters, 4 square meters, 4 square meters, and 4 square meters, and 13-4 square meters, and the respondent's possession of 13-4 square meters, 4 square meters, and 4 square meters, and the applicant's custody is ordered to the head of the family belonging to the Seoul Central District Court.

(b) make the respondent use of it on the condition that it does not change the present phenomenon.

(c) the purport of this subsection must be disclosed to the public in an appropriate manner.

(D) The respondent shall not transfer his possession to another person or change his title of possession.

(2) The applicant's remaining claims are dismissed.

(3) The total cost of the petition shall be borne by the respondent.

(A) The respondent's possession of the building in the order of the Respondent and the applicant's custody is ordered to the head of the office of the Seoul Civil Court.

(B) Provisional disposition that such purport should be publicly notified in an appropriate manner.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The judgment dismissing the petitioner's motion of this case

(1) First of all, the respondent's defense against the above Respondent's violation of exclusive jurisdiction was owned by 8-5 to 18-5 to 189. The respondent constructed the above Respondent's building without legitimate title and owned the Respondent's 1st floor and 3th floor of the above Respondent's building, and the Respondent's lease the 4th floor to the non-applicant's Respondent's gate to the non-applicant's gate's gate and the Respondent's gate's gate's gate's gate's gate's 7th order to remove the above building site's Respondent's Respondent's gate's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's 7th.

Nevertheless, the court below, which is the first instance court, has deliberated and decided on the application for provisional disposition of this case, and therefore has an error of law regarding the exclusive jurisdiction, and thus should cancel the judgment of the court below and transfer the case to the competent court. However, the case of the provisional disposition application of this case is one of the party members where the principal case is pending by the appeal of the respondent against the judgment of the court below which admitted the application for provisional disposition of this case. Thus, the party members shall cancel

(2) On February 3, 1976, the applicant completed the execution on February 5, 1976 after receiving a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession from the above applicants from the Seoul District Court, and again received a decision of substitute execution from the same court on January 26, 1978 after the judgment of winning the above provisional execution was rendered. On June 19, 1978, the above provisional disposition execution was transferred to the head of the office belonging to the same court on June 19, 1978, and the above execution was transferred to the above provisional disposition execution was completed upon delegation to the head of the office belonging to the same court on June 19, 1978, and the non-applicant and the non-applicant who succeeded to the possession of the first to the third or third floor of the above building from the first or third floor after obtaining the consent of the above non-applicant and the non-applicant to remove the above building from each of the above non-applicant Kim, but there was no dispute over the removal of the above building by the Seoul High Court's order to remove the above 17th and the order.

The petitioner's attorney asserts that the above eviction execution is part of the commencement of removal and execution of the above building and that the respondent again enters the above building after the execution of the above eviction execution is clear that it constitutes a new infringement on the applicant's ownership due to the possession of the building. Thus, in order to preserve the execution of the right to demand removal and delivery of the above building, the respondent's claim for provisional disposition of removal and delivery of the site should be made. Thus, in this case, the respondent has a duty to remove the above building and deliver the site to the applicant. However, even if the applicant has the right to request removal and delivery of the above building site, it is necessary to seek provisional disposition against the respondent, who is the owner of the above building, for the purpose of preserving the right to demand removal and delivery of the above building and the execution of the right to demand removal and delivery of the site, and it does not appear that there is a need to take a provisional disposition to prevent the change in the present situation of possession until the removal and execution of the building.

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be revoked, but the applicant's application for provisional disposition of this case shall be accepted only within the above scope on the condition that the applicant deposits 400,000 won as security by filling it to the name of the reasons for the provisional disposition, and the remainder of the applicant's application shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 92, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges Lee Jong-soo(Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)