Applicant (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yang-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Of the species of mineral laver, Glaver, Sho Mazin

Daejeon District Court Order 2017Kadan50838 dated May 24, 2017

1. Revocation of a decision of the first instance;

2. The provisional disposition order issued on December 1, 2014 by this Court is revoked with respect to an application case for provisional disposition with respect to the prohibition of real estate disposition between the above parties.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

A. On December 1, 2014, the respondent received a provisional disposition on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the applicant, with the “right to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust” as a preserved right, as to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition”).

B. On December 24, 2015, the Respondent filed a lawsuit against the applicant on the ground that “the applicant has succeeded to the status of the title trustee of the instant real estate, and the applicant is obligated to implement the registration procedure on the ground of termination of title trust with respect to the instant real estate.” However, the above court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that “the applicant does not have the right to represent the respondent to the other party stated in the representative of the respondent” on the ground that “the applicant does not have the right to represent the respondent.”

C. The respondent appealed to this Court No. 2016Na100377. On November 4, 2016, the above court dismissed the appeal on the ground that “The respondent has no evidence to deem that the respondent has a unique meaning of clans, such as having independent organization and continuing activities with descendants who jointly set up the 36th rank rank of the mine in the mine as members of the clan, etc., and the respondent is not entitled to represent the respondent.” The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da269124 Decided March 16, 2017, but the above judgment was dismissed and the judgment became final and conclusive.

2. Determination

In a case where a judgment of dismissal is rendered on the grounds of the law in the lawsuit on the merits of a preservative measure, it shall not be deemed that there is a change in circumstances generally (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da53715, Dec. 24, 2004, etc.). However, as seen earlier, as long as the judgment dismissing the lawsuit of the respondent on the grounds that the respondent is not deemed to have a party ability, the respondent is no longer able to exercise the right to be preserved for the provisional disposition decision of this case by re-instigation of the principal lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition decision of this case

Therefore, since the decision of provisional disposition of this case is not necessary to maintain, the decision of provisional disposition of this case must be revoked pursuant to Article 301 and Article 288 (1) 1 of the Civil Execution Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance shall be revoked, and the decision shall be revoked, and it shall be decided as per the Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)