Whether there is a change in circumstances in the grounds for the revocation of provisional disposition only by a judgment against the merits;

After the decision of provisional disposition, there is no change in circumstances to cancel the decision of provisional disposition, so long as it cannot be said that the decision is not likely to be cancelled in the appellate court even if the judgment of the losing court is declared in the lawsuit on the merits of the first instance.

Articles 715 and 706 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4291Nois26 Decided August 14, 1958 (Supreme Court Decision 5528DaKad 5528, Supreme Court Decision 6 citizen53, Decision No. 715(5)1098 of the Civil Procedure Act)

The Korea National Assembly of Manan District;

Simpo Fisheries Administration and Market Corporation

The main application is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant.

The decision of provisional disposition rendered on November 28, 1970 on the case of provisional disposition application with respect to the wooden Branch of the Gwangju District Court 70Ka8444 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (1).

On November 28, 1970, with respect to the case of a provisional disposition application against the respondent, the Gwangju District Court 70Kapo-si Branch 70Kapo-si Branch 7444, the applicant shall not engage in the consignment and wholesale act (similar wholesale market act) of Cheongpo-si, the applicant's association members (in the central wholesale market business area of Hopo-si, Hopo-si), all of Cheongpo-si, which are produced by the applicant's association members. The applicant shall not be engaged in the consignment and wholesale act (similar wholesale market act) of Cheongpo-si. The fact that the above purport should be published in a reasonable manner. The respondent has filed a provisional disposition as to the above provisional disposition case with the applicant as the defendant and filed a lawsuit for exclusion of the violation of duties and the claim for damages with the same court 71 Gapo-Ga and 91 until June 14, 1973, the court of appeal against the plaintiff and the respondent did not dispute between the parties as of June 28, 1975.

The Respondent asserts that the Respondent would have lost the above Respondent's decision of provisional disposition, so the Respondent's act of using the above Respondent's agricultural products can only be seen as having been subject to the Respondent's decision of provisional disposition, and the Respondent's decision of dismissing the plaintiff's complaint is as follows: First, although the Central Wholesale Market Act is repealed and the alternative agricultural and fishery products wholesale market is prohibited from opening a market or wholesale business in an area where the Respondent's wholesale market is established; second, according to Article 127 and Article 59 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the Respondent's act of using the Respondent's agricultural products as an exclusive wholesale business within the scope of the Respondent's business and the Respondent's act of selling agricultural products can only be seen as having been prohibited from being operated within the scope of the Claimant's business without any dispute; second, the Claimant's act of using the Respondent's own wholesale market and the Respondent's act of selling agricultural products can be seen as having been prohibited from being operated within the scope of 15th of the Respondent's business.

Thus, there is no change in circumstances to cancel the provisional disposition as it is not reasonable to maintain it.

Therefore, the applicant's main application is without merit under the premise that there is a change of circumstances, and the costs of the lawsuit are dismissed at the expense of the applicant and decided as per the Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)