logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1967. 1. 24. 선고 66다2127 판결
[가처분취소][집15(1)민,024]
Main Issues

Article 720 of the Civil Procedure Act “When there are special circumstances”

Summary of Judgment

The term "when there are special circumstances" means circumstances in which the right to be preserved can achieve the purpose of monetary compensation or the debtor is suffering from a heavy damage due to a provisional disposition.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 720 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant-Appellee

Applicant

Respondent, appellant

Respondent 1 and one other

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu District Court Decision 66Na103 delivered on September 27, 1966

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

Reasons

The respondent's grounds of appeal are examined.

However, "When there are special circumstances" in Article 720 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the circumstances that can achieve the purpose of provisional disposition even by requiring an obligor of provisional disposition to provide security, i.e., the circumstance that the right to be compensated by the provisional disposition may reach the objective of such provisional disposition by obtaining monetary compensation, or that the obligor suffers special damages due to provisional disposition. If it has been substantiated that there are such special circumstances, provisional disposition may be cancelled, and whether the obligor has any right to oppose the obligee's right to claim for preservation of provisional disposition, is not directly related to the existence of the grounds for the provisional disposition's application due to special circumstances. Accordingly, the court below's decision of provisional disposition is merely a part of 17 square meters in Daegu-gu, which is the respondent (resident of revocation of provisional disposition) and it is hard to find that the above part of the provisional disposition's right to claim the above 17th anniversary of the above 19th anniversary of the construction site, which is owned by the Respondent, etc. (the above part of the 19th anniversary of the construction site is also 5th of the previous building site.

Since the respondent 2 filed a statement of grounds for appeal after the lapse of the statutory period of time, the appeal on the petition shall be dismissed.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with the above reasons and the principle of sharing the costs of lawsuit against the losing party.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu

arrow
심급 사건
-대구지방법원 1966.9.27.선고 66나103
본문참조조문