A. Whether the prohibition of provisional disposition against the debtor is also included in the case where the creditor rendered a provisional disposition against the garnishee on behalf of the debtor (negative)

B. Effect of violating the prohibition of provisional disposition against the so-called non-violation of rights

A. The provisional disposition by the creditor on behalf of the debtor against the third debtor is aimed at preventing the third debtor from doing any act such as transfer of ownership, etc. to any person other than the debtor in order to preserve the creditor's right to claim against the debtor. Thus, the prohibition of the provisional disposition against the debtor who is the person having the actual provisional disposition is not included herein

B. The provisional disposition prohibiting the so-called non-performance of rights, such as ordering a non-performance, shall not immediately deny the validity of the violation on the ground that the non-performance of rights did not constitute an execution method, except for serving the debtor with the decision.

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3155 Decided April 11, 1989

Attorney Yang Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other

[Supplementary Intervenor] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Defendant 1’s assistant intervenor (Attorney Han-won, Counsel for the intervenor)

Gwangju High Court Decision 87Na376 delivered on December 29, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The purpose of provisional disposition by the creditor on behalf of the debtor is to prevent the garnishee from doing any act of transfer, etc. of ownership in order to preserve the creditor's right to claim against the debtor. Thus, the prohibition of disposition against the debtor, who is the person having the right to provisional disposition, is not included in this disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6488, May 9, 1989; 87Meu3155, Apr. 11, 1989).

In the same purport, even if the plaintiff made a provisional disposition against the defendant Young-gun on behalf of the defendant in lieu of the defendant 1, the fact that the defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer from the defendant Young-gun is consistent with the purpose of the provisional disposition. Accordingly, it is just to determine that the registration completed by the defendant 1 to the defendant defendant 1 is valid, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.

In addition, the provisional disposition of the so-called non-performance of rights, such as ordering the non-performance of rights, as alleged in the assertion, shall not immediately deny the validity of the violation on the ground that the non-performance of rights did not constitute an execution method, except for the service of the debtor of the decision, and that the act violating the above provisional disposition was committed (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6488 delivered on May 9, 1989). Thus, the court below determined that the registration completed to the intervenor joining the defendant after the provisional disposition of the prohibition of the above

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)