[1] In a case where a provisional disposition against disposal of the land subject to expropriation has been made, whether the business entity may deposit the compensation on the ground that the person cannot be aware of the person to whom the compensation was made (negative with qualification)

[2] In a case where a provisional disposition to preserve a right to claim for registration of real estate was executed unfairly, whether it can be deemed that the provisional disposition caused damage to the debtor (negative with qualification), and in a case where land expropriation was conducted, whether the inmate may enjoy the benefit of occupation and use of the land (negative)

[3] In case where a public project operator deposits an objection to the amount of land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Tribunal, whether the inmate may receive the deposit without reservation (affirmative)

[4] In a case where an execution creditor of a preservative measure loses or becomes final and conclusive in a lawsuit on the merits of the case, whether such creditor is presumed to have intention or negligence with respect to damage caused by the execution of a preservative measure by the debtor (affirmative), and in a case where a person who is not the execution creditor is jointly liable for tort

[5] The case holding that a person who is not a creditor of provisional disposition shall be held liable for aiding and abetting an unfair preservative measure against the person who is not a joint tortfeasor

[1] Where a provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal has been made on the land subject to expropriation, it shall not be deposited solely for the reason that the person subject to compensation is unknown, but where there is a dispute as to the reversion of ownership of the land subject to expropriation, such as where a provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal, the right to request cancellation of registration of ownership, has been registered, it may be deposited on the ground that the person subject to compensation cannot be known.

[2] Even if a provisional disposition was executed unfairly to preserve a right to claim registration of real estate, such provisional disposition has relative effect as to the prohibition of disposal, and even after its execution, an obligor still can dispose of the real estate while continuing to use or profit-making the real estate. Thus, even though the existence of such provisional disposition was lost an opportunity to dispose of the real estate, or the price was not paid from time to time due to its existence, it is difficult to deem that the damage was caused unless it exceeds the occupancy profit gained while holding the real estate. Even if the damage was caused due to a disadvantage exceeding the occupancy profit, the damages should be liable only when the provisional disposition obligee knew or could have known such circumstance. However, Article 67 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "the business owner shall acquire the ownership of the land or goods on the date of expropriation, and another right to the land or goods shall be extinguished," and Article 63 of the same Act provides that "the owner of the land or the person who has other right to the land after the date of expropriation or use shall transfer it to the prisoner, and thus, the previous owner's right to expropriate or use of the land shall be returned.

[3] In a case where a debtor deposits for repayment on the ground that the scope of the amount of debt is disputed, the debtor may withhold an objection to the scope of the amount of debt and receive the deposit money, and such a legal principle does not completely apply to the case where the business operator deposits for the amount of land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Tribunal pursuant to Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act.

[4] Where a preservative measure such as an improper provisional seizure or provisional disposition is executed intentionally or by negligence, the execution of the preservative measure shall constitute a tort, and where the execution creditor becomes final and conclusive after the execution of the measure, the damage suffered by the debtor is presumed to have been caused by the execution creditor intentionally or by negligence, unless there is any special counter-proof to the contrary, and where a non-execution creditor knowingly knows that the application for the preservative measure was due to a right or legal relationship without any factual and legal basis, or where a non-execution creditor makes an application for preservative measure which is deemed to have been significantly lost in light of the purpose and purpose of the trial system, even though he can easily know that the application for preservative measure was filed by the execution creditor, he shall not be exempted from the liability as a joint tortfeasor.

[5] The case holding that a person who is not a creditor of provisional disposition shall be held liable for aiding and abetting the application for unfair preservative measures, and shall be held liable as a joint tortfeasor

[1] Article 61(2)2, 4, and 65 of the Land Expropriation Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act; Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act; Articles 63 and 67(1) of the Land Expropriation Act / [3] Article 487 of the Civil Act; Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act / [4] Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act; Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act / [5] Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act; Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5509 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1409) / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu197 delivered on November 9, 1982 (Gong1983, 113) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 98Da52513 delivered on April 13, 199 (Gong199Sang, 874 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2001), Supreme Court Decision 200Da46184 delivered on September 24, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2467)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Tae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na51833 delivered on May 16, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Summary of the judgment below

원심은, 서울 중구 주교동 230 등 대지의 북쪽 지상에 건축된 공동주택 1동(이하 '구관'이라고 한다)과, 남쪽 지상에 건축된 공동주택 1동(이하 '신관'이라고 한다) 사이를 동서로 가로지르는 도로인 같은 동 230의 1 대 81.6평(이하 '이 사건 토지'라고 한다)에 대하여, 1979. 4. 28.자로 망 소외 1 등 9인 명의의 각 지분이전등기가 경료되었다가, 1993.경부터 망 소외 1, 원고, 선정자 소외 2(이하 '이 사건 토지 소유자들'이라고 한다)가 이 사건 토지를 공유하게 된 사실, 그런데 원심 공동피고 소외 3과 망 소외 4(이하 '이 사건 가처분 채권자들'이라고 한다)가 1993. 1. 21. 이 사건 토지 소유자들을 상대방으로 하여 "이 사건 토지 소유자들은 신·구관 수분양자들이 위 망 소외 1 등 9인에게 이 사건 토지를 명의신탁한 사실을 알면서도 수탁자들 일부와 공모하여 위와 같이 지분이전등기를 경료받았으므로 위 등기는 반사회질서에 해당하는 원인무효로서 말소되어야 한다."고 주장하면서 그 말소등기청구권을 피보전권리로 하여 이 사건 토지에 대한 처분금지가처분신청을 하였고, 이에 서울민사지방법원은 1993. 2. 2.자로 처분금지가처분결정을 하여 1993. 2. 8. 그 가처분기입등기(이하 '이 사건 가처분등기'라고 한다)가 경료된 사실, 한편 당시 구관 입주자회의 회장이던 피고는 망 소외 4와 함께 주민들에게 "이 사건 토지에 대한 보상금문제로 소송을 제기하면 승소해서 수천만 원씩을 탈 수 있다."고 말하면서 변호사 보수로 가구당 10만 원씩을 갹출하는 한편, 위 가처분 신청이유와 같은 내용의 진술서를 작성하여 가처분신청의 소명자료로 법원에 제출한 사실, 그런데 이 사건 토지 중 원고 및 망 소외 1의 공유지분 일부는, 수용시기를 각 1993. 7. 20.로 하는 서울특별시 지방토지수용위원회(이하 '지토위'라고 한다)의 재결을 거쳐, 이 사건 토지 중 선정자 소외 2의 공유지분 일부는 수용시기를 1994. 2. 25.로 하는 내용의 지토위의 수용재결을 거쳐, 각 서울특별시 중구(이하 '중구'라고 한다)에 의하여 수용되었고, 중구는 이 사건 가처분등기가 경료되어 있어 정당한 보상금을 지급받을 자를 알 수 없다는 이유로 각 수용일경에 피공탁자를 위 해당 지분소유자 또는 가처분채권자로 하여 그 각 손실보상금을 공탁한 사실, 그 후 이 사건 토지소유자들의 이의신청에 따라 중앙토지수용위원회가 보상금을 증액하는 내용의 이의재결처분을 하자, 중구는 1995. 1. 14. 피공탁자를 위 해당 지분소유자 또는 가처분채권자들로 지정하여 이의재결보상금과 수용재결보상금의 차액을 공탁한 사실, 한편 원고 및 선정자 소외 2와, 망 소외 1의 재산상속인들(선정자 소외 5, 소외 6, 소외 7, 소외 8, 소외 9)은 1997. 3.경 이 사건 가처분채권자들을 상대방으로 하여 제소명령을 신청하였고, 이에 피고를 포함하여 당시 신·구관 소유자들 40인이 원고, 선정자 소외 2 및 망 소외 1의 재산상속인들을 상대방으로 하여 서울지방법원에 위 각 공탁금의 출급권확인소송을 제기하였으나, 서울지방법원은 1998. 6. 23. 신·구관 소유자들이 이 사건 토지를 망 소외 1 등 9인에게 명의신탁하였음을 인정할 수 없다는 이유로 그 청구를 기각하는 한편 이 사건 가처분결정을 취소하였으며, 이에 신·구관 소유자들 중 일부가 항소하였으나 그 항소가 기각되고, 신·구관 소유자들이 상고를 하지 않아 위 판결들은 1999. 8. 15. 확정된 사실을 인정한 다음, 위 인정 사실에 의하면, 이 사건 가처분 채권자들은 이 사건 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기말소청구권을 피보전권리로 하여 처분금지가처분을 신청하였다가 그 후 본안소송에서 그 피보전권리가 없는 것으로 확정되었으므로 동인들의 위 가처분 신청과 그 집행은 특별한 반증이 없는 한 고의 또는 과실로 인한 것이라고 추정되고, 한편 피고도 위 가처분 이전부터 이 사건 토지의 소유자들이 정당한 소유권자임을 알았으면서도 이 사건 토지의 소유자들과 다투어 온 경위, 위 가처분 신청의 재판비용을 갹출하고 가처분 신청이유와 같은 내용의 진술서를 작성하여 가처분 신청의 소명자료로 법원에 제출한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고는 망 소외 4 등의 위 가처분의 부당한 집행을 방조하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 피고는 이 사건 가처분 채권자들과 공동불법행위자로서 각자 원고, 망 소외 1, 선정자 소외 2(이하 '원고 등'이라고 한다)에게, 부당한 이 사건 가처분의 집행으로 인하여 원고 등이 공탁금을 제때에 수령하지 못하여 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 판단하였다.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. Where a provisional disposition against disposal of the land subject to expropriation has been made, a person cannot deposit the land on the ground that the person subject to expropriation is unknown, but where there is a dispute as to the reversion of ownership of the land subject to expropriation, such as where the right to claim cancellation of the registration of ownership has been registered as a right to preserve, the person subject to expropriation may deposit the land on the ground that the person cannot be identified (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5509 delivered on March 22, 196).

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, since it can be known that the right to claim the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case is the right to be preserved, in light of the above legal principles, it is justifiable to deposit on the ground that the Jung-gu is not aware of the person to be compensated. Therefore, it is just to recognize the defendant's liability for damages on the premise that there is a proximate causal relation between the provisional disposition of this case and the fact that the plaintiffs did not receive the adjudication compensation, and there is

B. Even if a provisional disposition has been executed to preserve a right to claim registration of real estate, such provisional disposition has relative effect as to the prohibition of disposal, and an obligor still can dispose of the real estate while continuing to use or profit from the real estate after its execution. Thus, even if the existence of such provisional disposition was lost an opportunity to dispose of the real estate or was unable to receive the price from time, it is difficult to deem that the damage occurred unless it exceeds the benefit of occupation and use acquired while holding the real estate. Even if the damage occurred due to a disadvantage exceeding the interests of occupation and use of the real estate, the damages should be liable only when the provisional disposition obligee knew or could have known the situation. However, Article 67(1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "public project owner shall acquire the ownership of the land or goods on the date of expropriation, and the other rights on the land or goods shall be extinguished," Article 63 of the same Act provides that "the owner of the land or the person who has the right to use the land after the date of expropriation or use shall transfer it to the public project owner or the previous right to expropriate the land."

In light of the records, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff et al. paid the compensation in this case for damages equivalent to the difference in interest, and that the deposit was made around and after the date of expropriation. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, there is no possibility that the plaintiff et al. may enjoy occupancy profit by using and earning profit from the land of this case after the period for interest for which the plaintiff et al. seeks compensation for damages occurred. Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below recognized that the plaintiff et al. suffered damages equivalent to the difference in interest of the adjudication compensation due to the provisional disposition in this case, and there is no error of law, and there is no error of law, and the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff et al. claimed that there was a violation of the precedents in the judgment of the court below, and it is not possible to invoke this case as it is different from the case.

C. In a case where a debtor deposits for repayment on the grounds that the scope of the amount of debt is disputed, the debtor may withhold an objection to the scope of the amount of debt and receive the deposit money, and such legal principle does not completely apply to the case where the business operator deposits for the amount of land expropriation compensation decided by the Land Tribunal pursuant to Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu197 delivered on November 9, 1982).

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the above legal principles and the records, it is reasonable that the court below recognized that the plaintiff et al. suffered damages equivalent to the difference in interest because the plaintiff et al. could not receive the compensation due to the provisional disposition of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as to the existence of the plaintiff et al.

D. Where a preservative measure such as an improper provisional attachment or provisional disposition is executed intentionally or by negligence, the execution of the preservative measure shall constitute a tort, and where the execution creditor becomes final and conclusive after the execution of the measure becomes final and conclusive, the damage suffered by the debtor is presumed to have been caused by the execution creditor intentionally or by negligence, unless there is any special counter-proof to the contrary, and where a person who is not the execution creditor knowingly knows that the application for the preservative measure was due to a right or legal relationship without any factual and legal basis, or where it is ordinarily known that the execution creditor would easily have been made, even though he could have easily known that the application for the preservative measure was filed by the execution creditor, thereby making an application for preservative measure which is deemed to have considerably lost in light of the purpose and purpose of the trial system, he shall not be exempted from the liability as a joint tortfeasor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da52513, Apr. 13, 199; 98Da3757, Sept. 3, 199).

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is justified that the court below acknowledged the fact that the land owner of this case was aware that prior to the application for the provisional disposition of this case was the legitimate owner of the land of this case, that the defendant collected expenses for the trial on the application for provisional disposition of this case, and that the defendant prepared a statement with the same contents as the grounds for the application for provisional disposition of this case and submitted it to the court as the materials supporting the application for provisional disposition of this case, and it cannot be said that there is any misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and if the facts are true, the defendant knew that the application for the provisional disposition of this case was due to a right or legal relationship without any factual and legal basis or if it is ordinary, even though it can be easily known that the application for the provisional disposition of this case was made by aiding and abetting the application for the provisional disposition of this case, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the court below made the application for the provisional disposition of this case which is deemed considerable in light of the purpose and purpose of the court system.

E. All of the grounds for appeal are dismissed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)