Where the necessity of preservative measures and the scope thereof are violated;

Even if the real estate in dispute is owned by the defendant, the same contents against the non-party before the defendant filed the application for the provisional disposition of this case and received the judgment of compensation for damages. In addition, the application for the provisional disposition of this case with the same contents is executed, and there is no filing of lawsuit against the plaintiff. At the time, the defendant had obtained the provisional disposition against the plaintiff to prohibit the extension of the disposal of the real estate in dispute, and if the plaintiff et al. used this real estate, it is not necessary to make the provisional disposition to preserve the above rights again. Even if the provisional disposition should be taken, the possession of the plaintiff et al. can be sufficiently achieved even if the plaintiff et al. continued to use it on the condition that the plaintiff et al. would not change the phenomenon, and there is no need to preserve the disposition, or there is an error of law that deviates from its scope.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judgment 4289 Civil Procedure Act (Supreme Court Decision 5439 delivered on August 9, 1956, Decision 714(3) of the summary of the decision and Article 714(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff 1 and 44 others

Korea

Busan District Court (63Ga714)

The main appeal against Plaintiffs 1 and 2 is dismissed, respectively.

The part against plaintiffs 3 and 49 in the original judgment shall be revoked.

Plaintiff 3 and 49 others are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 corporation and the plaintiff 2 shall be borne by the defendant, the plaintiff 3 and the plaintiff 49 and the defendant through the court of first and second instance.

The plaintiff et al.'s legal representative is the purport of the claim, and the defendant added the amount of 2,184,683 won to the plaintiff 1 corporation, the amount of 1,324,250 won to the plaintiff 2, the amount of 828,802 won to the plaintiff 3 and 49 others, and the amount of 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the defendant's attorney shall revoke the original judgment as the purport of appeal.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, etc. through the first and second trials.

1. First, we judge the part of the claim by Plaintiffs 1 and 2.

The plaintiff company is operating the business of storing domestic and foreign bonded goods for export and import by using the attached list Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant becomes the applicant and filed an application for provisional disposition No. 1002 with the above plaintiff et al. as the respondent of Busan District Court 60.6.24.6.24. The mobilization is revoked on the attached list No. 1, which the plaintiff et al. possessed by the above plaintiff 2 without the mental or physical knowledge of the party, and the defendant, the applicant, has the Busan District Court Diplomatic Office, Busan District Court, which was delegated by the defendant, keep the real estate in custody, and had the plaintiff et al. keep the real estate on the condition that he did not change the present state of the above building and did not change the present state of the above building, and the defendant could immediately execute the provisional disposition, and the above plaintiff et al. was released from the plaintiffs' possession of the above real estate, etc. on July 2, 2007.

The defendant had cancelled the provisional disposition contract between the non-party 1 on September 13, 51. Even if the above non-party was the original property devolving upon the non-party 1, the court below rejected the appeal on November 27, 59. The non-party's decision became final and conclusive on November 35, 59. The above non-party asserted that the above non-party was not negligent in executing the provisional disposition on the premise that the above non-party's claim for provisional disposition was filed for the above non-party 1 through 5, Nos. 10-1, 2 and 3 without dispute over the establishment, and that the above provisional disposition was not executed on the non-party 2's own property and the non-party 2's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party 2's non-party's non-party's non-party's right to preserve 2's non-party 6's non-party's non-party.

However, the defendant did not execute the provisional disposition as a interference with the plaintiff et al., and the above plaintiff et al. used the plaintiff et al. as a bonded warehouse even after the execution of the provisional disposition, and therefore did not cause any damage, according to the testimony of the non-party 3 witness of the court below, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff et al. did not have any interference with the execution of the provisional disposition, but there is no evidence to prove that even if the plaintiff et al. were to prove that the execution of the provisional disposition was impossible, even if it was based on the defendant's prior testimony, the above execution of the provisional disposition was not possible, or there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff et al. suffered any damage due to the execution of the provisional disposition. Accordingly, according to the testimony of the non-party 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the court below witness No. 7 of the court below after the execution of the provisional disposition, the above plaintiff et al.'s warehouse and the plaintiff 2's main warehouse after the execution of the provisional disposition was without cargo.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the above plaintiff's property and mental damage caused by the above provisional disposition execution. As above, the defendant's company's 20 tons of the above provisional disposition's 20.3 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 20.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 20.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 19.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 20.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 20.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 20.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 19.6 billion won of the plaintiff's 2.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 20.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 19.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 20.6 billion won of the plaintiff's 2.6.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 6.6.6 billion won of the above provisional disposition's 10.6.6.6.

Then, the above plaintiffs et al. have been using in the bonded warehouse business for 110 days due to the defendant's execution of disposal of this property, and the business is virtually suspended, and the construction work of the provisional disposition is accompanied by the construction work board, and thus, the above plaintiffs et al. can easily be taken into consideration in light of the experience of misunderstanding that the above plaintiffs et al. suffered mental pain. Thus, the defendant has a duty to do so as money for mental suffering suffered by the above plaintiffs et al. due to the execution of the provisional disposition above. Considering the process of execution of provisional disposition in this case, the social status of the above plaintiffs et al. as well as all other circumstances, the consolation money for the plaintiff et al. shall be deemed as KRW 2,00,000 for the plaintiff et al. al.

Therefore, the defendant is not dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below ordering the plaintiff company to pay damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum from April 3, 63 to the full payment date, which is the next day of the service of 1,224,250 won in total for the plaintiff 2, and from April 3, 63 to the next day of the service of gusheshes. Thus, it is reasonable within the scope of the judgment of the court below and the remainder is actually dismissed.

2. Next, we examine the claims of Plaintiffs 3 and 49 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) except Plaintiff 2.

The plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. sought compensation for the benefit of 828,802 won, monthly average of 110 days during the execution period, since the plaintiff et al., who are exclusively in charge of the plaintiff et al.'s access to new cargo and the assistance of the plaintiff et al. that are exclusively in charge of the above plaintiff et al.'s work, rather than the plaintiff et al.'s daily wage, they lost their right to receive 70,013 tons of wages for 110 days during the execution period. Thus, the so-called exclusive labor worker such as the plaintiff et al. refers to the person who works in a specific warehouse, and therefore, he cannot be viewed as having a contractual obligation to prevent the plaintiff et al. from being employed by the owner of goods from engaging in labor at a specific place other than a warehouse, or to be engaged in labor at a specific warehouse, and such relation is merely a factual fact, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff et al.'s factual relation with the plaintiff et al., and the defendant cannot be found to have any special circumstances.

Therefore, since the original judgment on the part of the plaintiff company's claim against the plaintiff company's plaintiff 2 is reasonable, the appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the remaining plaintiff 3 and 49 are improper, and the original judgment on the claim against the plaintiff 3 and 49 is revoked, and the decision is delivered with the competent authority as to the burden of litigation costs by applying Articles 95, 89, 92, and 93

Judges Song-sung (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ho