Cases where the judgment of a provisional disposition is deemed unlawful on the premise that the effect of the provisional disposition is sustained despite the loss of the effect of the provisional disposition.

In case where the provisional disposition creditor has lost in the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition case, it is reasonable to view that there is a change in circumstances to revoke the provisional disposition when the judgment is not likely to be revoked in the superior

Articles 715 and 706 of the Civil Procedure Act

Pung Industrial Co., Ltd. and two others (Attorneys Lee Won-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Attorney Oin-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 62Ka33 delivered on June 14, 1962

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1

There is no error in the court below's rejection of the Respondent's application for resumption of pleading, and there is no reason to argue that the Respondent violates the principle of fairness in litigation law without giving the Respondent an opportunity to assert facts and prove, and the response of the Respondent is reasonable.

Judgment on ground of appeal No. 2

If a person driving away from the law of Articles 715 and 706 of the Civil Procedure Act, the change of circumstances to cancel the provisional disposition refers to the change of circumstances in which a new situation has occurred that would substantially deny the provisional disposition. The argument of the appeal that the provisional disposition cannot be a new circumstance that would be cancelled only with the fact that the court rendered a decision denying the right to be preserved by the provisional disposition in the principal lawsuit in the case of the provisional disposition is justifiable, if the creditor of the provisional disposition loses the court in the first instance of the lawsuit on the merits, it is reasonable to view that there is a change of circumstances that would have to cancel the provisional disposition even before the judgment is rendered, if it is deemed that there is no concern that the judgment would be cancelled by the free will of the court even before the judgment is rendered, and the answer

Judgment on ground of appeal No. 3

As pointed out in the debate, the above provisional disposition decision was changed by the court's decision on June 24, 1960 with respect to this case, and the above provisional disposition decision on July 22, 1961 with an objection of the respondent, and the above provisional disposition decision on June 24, 1960 changed by the court's decision on July 22, 1961 with an objection of the respondent, and the above provisional disposition decision on June 24, 1960 is inconsistent with the provisional disposition order ordered by the above judgment (the changed decision on provisional disposition is changed only to the extent that it can be used by the respondent on condition that the real estate is stored by the applicant or a third party without changing the present state of the real estate) and it is interpreted that the provisional disposition decision on June 24, 1960 has become null and void as a matter of course by the above provisional disposition order. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the provisional disposition decision on June 24, 1961 with an explanation of the applicant's objection.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is with the assent of all Justices who participated in the lower court in order to reverse the original judgment on the ground that it was decided in the ground of appeal No. 3, omitted judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal, and make the original judgment new

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags