Whether or not to allow the application for temporary injunction against illegal possessors

Even if this house belongs to the applicant's ownership or possession, since the respondent et al. possesses the house, it is unreasonable to apply for provisional disposition against the respondent et al. for the prohibition of entry even if the possession is illegal for domestic affairs.

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 64Ma367 decided Sep. 15, 1964 (Law No. 714(9)1094, Ka7895, Gab 12 ② 103)

Applicant

Respondent 1 and 2 others

Daegu District Court of the first instance (Law No. 4293 inhabitants423)

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The application for provisional injunction shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant through the first and second trials.

This judgment may be provisionally executed only under Paragraph (1) of this Article.

The respondent et al. sought a judgment on the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2's Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2's Respondent No. 3 and No. 1 and No. 2's Respondent No. 4 were the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 4 were the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2 were the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 3 were the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent's Respondent No. 4 were the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's 7.

There is no dispute between the applicant and the respondent about the fact that the purchase and sale contract was concluded as 350 % for the land Nos. 2, 3 and 9 of 9 of Daegu-dong No. 4293, Aug. 2, 4293 and the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent for the land Nos. 9 and 14-9 and 9-2 of the apapex 14,000 house, and the Respondent et al. occupy part of the main house from October 19, 4293. Thus, even if the above house belongs to the owner or possession of the Claimant as alleged by the Claimant, as long as the Respondent et al. occupies the house, even if the Respondent et al. occupies the house, the application for provisional disposition for provisional disposition against the Respondent et al. is unfair and it is improper to reject the application for provisional disposition. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance court different from this purport is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the provisional execution is declared Article 89-16 of the same Act.

Judges Lee Jong-il (Presiding Judge)