The case holding that the provisional attachment cannot be useful to preserve the right to claim a new division of property, in case where the other party's property was provisionally seized as the right to claim a division of property while filing a lawsuit for divorce and division of property, but a divorce and a lawsuit for division of property is brought again after the final judgment dismissing

The case holding that the provisional attachment cannot be useful to preserve the right to claim a new division of property, in case where the other party's property was provisionally seized as the right to claim a division of property while filing a lawsuit for divorce and division of property, but a divorce and division of property is brought again after the final and conclusive judgment dismissing the claim

Article 288 of the Civil Execution Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Applicant

Respondent

Seoul Family Court Decision 2002 business group2183 delivered on December 16, 2002

May 29, 2003

1. The respondent's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Respondent shall bear the costs of appeal.

1. Purport of request;

With respect to an application case for provisional seizure against real estate of this Court No. 2000 business group3365 between the applicant and the respondent, this Court shall revoke the provisional seizure decision made on November 10, 200 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the applicant's application is dismissed.

1. Decision of provisional seizure;

The respondent filed an application for provisional seizure against the applicant to preserve the claim amounting to KRW 30 million, division of property, KRW 90,000,000 as a result of divorce, on the ground that the respondent has the claim amounting to KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

2. Existence and change in circumstances of the right to preserve;

A. Factual relations

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the evidence presented in the records of this case.

(1) On July 31, 1978, the respondent completed the marriage report with the applicant and brought one male and female between them.

(2) On November 21, 200, the respondent filed a lawsuit seeking divorce, consolation money, and division of property against the applicant on the ground that the applicant flurddddly handled the respondent during the marriage life while drinking the respondent, and flurd verbal abuse and assault against the respondent at any time, and that the applicant flurds the respondent collectively without any reason on October 26, 200.

(3) However, on September 5, 2001, the respondent was sentenced to a judgment against the Respondent on the ground that the main responsibility of the marriage dissolution between the two parties was against the Respondent. The respondent appealed and appealed, but on July 25, 2002, Seoul High Court Decision 2001Reuu1959 was sentenced to dismissal of appeal. The respondent appealed and appealed again, but on September 20, 2002, the judgment of dismissal of appeal was affirmed as Supreme Court Decision 2002Meu1244 Decided September 20, 200, and the above judgment of loss became final and conclusive.

(4) The respondent filed a divorce and a lawsuit claiming division of property against the applicant for a long period of time on the grounds of marriage dissolution, which is currently pending in this Court 2002dhap15092, on the grounds of the main reason of marriage dissolution.

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, the decision of provisional seizure of this case has changed circumstances where it is no longer necessary to maintain it as the respondent's materials on divorce and the claim for division of property became final and conclusive against the respondent, which is the case on the merits of this case. Thus, the applicant's application of this case seeking revocation has merit

(2) Since the respondent has filed a lawsuit seeking divorce and division of property against the petitioner again, it is argued to the purport that the decision of provisional seizure of this case should be maintained in order to preserve the right to claim division of property. However, even in the case where the above case of 2002Dhap15092, which was filed by the respondent, is identical with the above case of 200Dhap10796, which was already finalized by the respondent, it is not allowed to use the above provisional seizure as it is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's application of this case is accepted with its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with its conclusion, so the respondent's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition. [Separate Application] It is omitted.

Judges Yellow-gu (Presiding Judge)