The purpose and grounds for the preservation of provisional disposition

Even though the order of provisional disposition cannot serve the purpose of preserving the future compulsory execution, or even if the purport of the application of provisional disposition exceeds the purpose of preserving it, the court may determine the necessary disposition to set the purpose of the application within the scope of the preservation purpose as a free opinion without going through a separate opinion. Therefore, the decision of provisional disposition at the place where the application for provisional disposition failed to meet the purpose of preserving

Articles 755, 756, and 760 of the Civil Procedure Act

Dentleleap

Attorney Lee Jin-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellee, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, and the Seoul High Court of the second instance 54 civil defense608 delivered on March 30, 1955

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Respondent's ground of appeal is that the order of provisional disposition under the Civil Procedure Act, as its reasoning, maintains the current state of a defense dispute or facilitate the execution of rights established by judicial process by maintaining the legal status of the dispute. Thus, provisional disposition which initials the object of preservation such as realizing the essence of the right in dispute cannot be allowed, because it is clearly unreasonable for the Respondent to request the Seoul District Court to change the legal reasoning of the order of provisional disposition to the effect that it is impossible for the Respondent to take possession of the right because it is clearly difficult for the Respondent to take possession of the right at the time of this case to reach the conclusion of the judgment, and that it is unreasonable for the Respondent to take possession of the right in this case to take possession of the Respondent to the effect that it would be difficult for the Respondent to take possession of the right in this case without entering into force the judgment of the Respondent to the effect that it would be difficult for the Respondent to take possession of the right in this case and that it would be difficult for the Respondent to take possession of the right in this case.

As such, the order of provisional disposition cannot serve the purpose of preserving the future compulsory execution, and even if the purport of the application of provisional disposition exceeds the purpose of preserving it, the court may examine it without the Gu, and determine the necessary disposition to achieve the purpose of preserving it within the limit of the purpose of preserving it by free opinion. In this case, it can be said that the revocation of the order of provisional disposition by failing to examine the existence of the reason of provisional disposition and the purport of the application has reached the purpose of preserving it by failing to exhaust all necessary matters by misunderstanding the commercial law. Accordingly, the appeal is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition under Article 407(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)