Whether the change of circumstances constitutes a case in which the right to claim the merits to be preserved by a provisional disposition has been determined against the grounds of substantive law.

If the right to claim the registration of cancellation of land ownership transfer registration, which is the right to claim a preliminary injunction against real estate disposal, becomes final and conclusive against the respondent, the provisional injunction is no longer necessary to continue to exist due to changes in circumstances, and even if a lawsuit for review is filed, it is not a reason to continue the provisional injunction

Articles 706 and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1856 delivered on January 24, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15Da1856 delivered on January 25, 196, Supreme Court Decision 65Da2201 delivered on January 25, 196 (Supreme Court Decision 15Da1856 delivered on January 24, 196, Supreme Court Decision 15Da1856 delivered on January 24, 196, Supreme Court Decision 706(9) of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Respondent

Jeonju District Court Decision 66Ka155 decided January 1, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The provisional disposition order issued by the applicant with respect to the case of application for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of real estate in the previous District Court No. 1965 (k) mobilization on March 8, 1965 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the respondent.

The respondent shall revoke the original judgment.

The applicant's application is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the applicants in the first and second trials.

On June 28, 1962, the respondent filed a lawsuit against the above two persons on July 6, 1964, demanding the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of the land ownership as 64A587 in order to file a claim for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of the land ownership as 64A587 with the court of first instance in order to lose the above two persons on the basis of the ownership of the above land, but the decision of provisional injunction against the disposal of the real estate against the above land was rendered against the applicant under 65Da588, but then 64A587 cases became final and conclusive to lose the respondent as a result of appeal and appeal.

The applicant asserts that the claim on the merits of the provisional injunction case of 65Kao58 is confirmed to be against the respondent in the appellate court of the case of demanding the cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration procedure of 64Ga587, and the reasons for the provisional injunction are extinguished. The respondent's claim for the cancellation of the provisional injunction of 66Ga468, Jun. 13, 1966, as the case concerning the above provisional injunction claims for the execution registration of ownership transfer registration procedure of 66Ka468, Jun. 13, 1966, the reasons for the provisional injunction still remain. Therefore, if comparing the contents of the provisional injunction order of 66Ka468, and 64Ga587, which is the main merits of the provisional injunction case of 64Ga587, which is the case of this case of 65Na6589, which is the main claim of this case, the respondent does not need to accept the above provisional injunction of 64Ga587, which is the case of this case.

Therefore, the order of provisional disposition decided by the court below on March 8, 1965 by mobilization of 65Ka58 is confirmed to have no right to claim the merits, and it is impossible to continue to exist because there is any change in circumstances that cannot continue to exist, so the original judgment, which is the same opinion, is just and the respondent's appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are dismissed in accordance with the principle of the losing party's appeal.

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Justice)