Whether a transfer ground to avoid substantial loss or delay is the sole reason for a separate court to judge the case of a claim for the registration of ownership transfer and the case of objection against provisional disposition (negative)

It is not necessary to avoid significant loss or delay solely on the grounds that a separate court decides on the case of a provisional disposition on real estate ownership transfer claim and the case of a provisional disposition on real estate ownership transfer claim.

Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 65Ma51 Decided March 17, 1965

Korea Assets Management Corporation

Gwangju High Court Order 90Ra10 dated October 18, 1990

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The court below held that there is no other evidence to prove that there is no need to avoid significant damage or delay merely on the grounds that a separate court rendered a separate trial on the case of the claim for the registration of real estate ownership transfer and the case of objection against provisional disposition on the real estate that seeks the registration of real estate ownership transfer. In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the designation of jurisdiction as provided in Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Act or contrary to the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won