In a case where the provisional disposition registration is cancelled in accordance with the judgment on revocation of provisional disposition where a provisional disposition is revoked in a situation where the ownership transfer registration has been made to a third party after the provisional disposition prohibition on real estate was registered, whether there is a benefit in an appeal to revoke the above judgment and seek the approval of the provisional disposition (negative)

If a provisional disposition is cancelled by the execution of a judgment revoking a provisional disposition, the effect of the provisional disposition is conclusive, and even if a person has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate concerned after the provisional disposition is cancelled, the person may oppose the provisional disposition applicant without any restriction on the real estate from the time when the provisional disposition is cancelled. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the above judgment and the authorization of the provisional disposition.

Articles 716, 719, 720, and 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1117 Decided September 30, 1968 (No. 16-3, 71)

Supreme Court Decision 71Da1619 delivered on November 30, 1971

[Plaintiff, Appellant] 89Da22 dated July 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 1949)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Shin-ho (Law Firm 21st century General Law Office, Attorney Jeon Jae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Lee Jong-young, Kim Jae-sung (Attorneys Kim Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 97Kaga95 delivered on April 29, 1997

1. The appeal by the applicant shall be dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The decision of provisional disposition rendered by the above court as of December 6, 1994 shall be approved with respect to the case of provisional disposition which is prohibited from disposing of real estate between the claimant and the respondent of Gwangju District Court 94Kahap844.

1. On December 6, 1994, in the case of a provisional injunction against real estate disposition against the respondent's head of the Gwangju District Court rendered against the respondent's head of the new clan, the above court decided on December 6, 1994 that the respondent shall not sell, transfer, lease on a deposit basis, establish a right of lease, or engage in any other act of disposal of the land listed in the separate sheet owned by him (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case"). The fact that the provisional injunction registration was completed as of December 6, 1994 as of the land in this case as of December 22768 of the above net support 194.

2. As the grounds for appeal of this case, the applicant asserts that the land of this case is the property of the respondent of this case, and that the above new Red Food, which was the representative of the respondent at the time of the above application for provisional disposition, sold the land of this case to the non-party identity awareness without the resolution of the clan general meeting, and that the applicant has filed an application for provisional disposition for the preservation of family property as one of the non-party clan members of the respondent, and therefore, the above provisional disposition decision should be approved as it is. However, the judgment of the court below revoked the above provisional disposition order and dismissed the above provisional disposition application of the applicant,

With respect to the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal of this case ex officio, if the registration of provisional disposition is cancelled by the execution of the provisional disposition revoking provisional disposition of this case, it becomes conclusive, so even if the person who received the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate after the registration of provisional disposition was cancelled, he may oppose the applicant for provisional disposition without any restriction on the above real estate. After the registration of provisional disposition with the applicant as the right holder was made on September 7, 1995, the registration of provisional disposition with the above name transfer was made on September 7, 1995, and then the court below revoked the above provisional disposition decision of this case and sentenced the provisional disposition rejecting the above provisional disposition of this case to the provisional disposition of this case, it cannot be viewed that the applicant for provisional disposition of this case has a right to seek the registration of provisional disposition of this case to be cancelled on June 11, 1997, because it cannot be viewed that the defendant's right to claim the registration of provisional disposition of this case cannot be viewed as being a right to claim the above provisional disposition of this case.

3. If so, the petitioner’s appeal of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Lee Tae-chul (Presiding Judge)