Whether a person who has acquired the ownership or the occupancy right of land can seek a provisional disposition against the occupant for the prohibition of entry.

As long as the respondent is the land cultivated by the original owner through a transfer of the right to cultivate from the original owner, the right to cultivate shall be lost thereafter, but even if the claimant acquired the ownership or the right to occupy and use, the provisional disposition against the respondent shall not be allowed, regardless of the fact that the respondent can seek a provisional disposition against the transfer of land.

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Respondent

Daejeon District Court (68Ka560) of the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

With respect to the case of the application for provisional disposition prohibiting entry into and departure from the Jeonju District Court 68Ka18 of the applicant and the respondent, the provisional disposition decision made on May 7, 1968 by the above court shall be revoked.

The request for provisional disposition by the petitioner is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

With respect to the case of application for provisional injunction against entry and exit between the applicant and the respondent of the Jeonju District Court 68Ka18, the decision of provisional injunction against the land listed in the separate sheet shall be approved on May 7, 1968.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent.

The same shall apply to the order.

On May 7, 1968, an applicant filed an application against the respondent for provisional injunction against access to the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as this case's land) in the Jeonju District Court's assistance, and the fact that the above court made the provisional injunction order as stated in Paragraph 2 of this Article upon the application is no dispute between the parties.

As the applicant's reasons for the above provisional disposition, the first land is transferred to the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, as part of the river site developed by the non-party 1 with the permission of his branch office 18,00 square meters, and the respondent interferes with the cultivation of the above land without any title. Thus, the respondent's application for provisional disposition is likely to cause irreparable damages to the applicant unless the above cultivation interference is rapidly excluded. Second, even if the applicant's right of possession of the above land is not acknowledged, the applicant purchased the land of the non-party 1 in the name of the applicant on October 7, 1970 and completed the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 6's original land on the ground that the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who acquired the above land from the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, who acquired the above land from the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who acquired the above land without any title, and thus the applicant's right to own land.

Therefore, since the applicant's application for provisional disposition on the merits of this case is clearly well-founded and groundless, the applicant's application for provisional disposition on the merits of this case shall be revoked and the application for provisional disposition on the merits of this case shall be dismissed. As such, since the original judgment on the different conclusions is unfair, the original judgment is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89, Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 716 of the Provisional Execution Act

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Go Youngk (Presiding Judge)