Whether a double application for provisional disposition is the same as a double lawsuit

The case pending due to a provisional disposition cannot be said to continue the lawsuit under Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act in view of the provisional nature of the provisional disposition itself.

Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Respondent 1 and one other

Busan District Court (73da5148)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

From among the buildings listed in the attached list, the part 14 square meters and 4 square meters and (b) of the 14 square meters and 6 square meters and 4 square meters and (c) of the 3 square meters and 23 square meters and 4 square meters in total and delegated by the respondent to the Busan District Court shall be ordered to be kept in custody.

The use of this part of the building shall be permitted to the applicant on the condition that it does not change the phenomenon.

such order shall be issued and publicly notified in an appropriate manner.

The filing cost shall be borne by the respondent.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

An applicant shall be dismissed.

Expenses incurred in filing an application shall be borne by the applicant through the first and second trials.

First of all, the respondent 1's main defense is viewed from the main defense.

The respondent asserts that the petitioner's application for provisional disposition against the respondent 1 on July 25, 1973 as to the part of the building in question in Busan District Court 73Ka3990 on the purport of the application of this case shall be dismissed because the applicant's application of this case shall be filed on July 25, 1973 on the applicant's judgment and the respondent's appeal shall continue to exist on the part of the party members, so the respondent's application of this case shall be rejected because it is overlapping with one of the respondent 1, and since the plaintiff's lawsuit without dispute over its establishment shall be 3 evidence Nos. 3-2 and 3-3 of the Nos. 3 of the case, prior to the application of this case, the applicant's provisional disposition application against the respondent 1 on the part of the building in question shall continue to be the Busan District Court 73Ka390 and appealed to the party members and it shall not be accepted as a copy of the judgment of the first 17th of the judgment on the execution of this case.

Furthermore, I examine the merits.

On June 20, 1969, the registration of Busan District Court was received on June 20, 1969, 23377, with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet, which was owned by the respondent 1, the registration of the establishment of the collateral security contract was made with the amount of eight million won or more on June 19, 1969, and the loan was made with the amount of five million won or more on the basis of the contract to establish the collateral security. The auction was conducted on October 26, 1972 upon the application of the voluntary auction by the Choung Bank on June 18, 1973, and the applicant was awarded the bid and completed the registration of the ownership transfer in its name on June 18, 197

Since the respondent is difficult to use the separate sheet No. 1 (A), No. 1 (b), No. 23 L. 44 L. 1 (C) of this real estate and the other party's use of the separate sheet No. 1 for the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) and the non-party 1's non-party 1's loan No. 500,000 won for the non-party 1's remaining 2,000 won for the non-party 1's loan and the remaining 1's loan No. 300,000 won for the non-party 1's loan No. 300,000 won for the non-party 1's loan No. 3,000 won for the non-party 1's loan No. 2 of this case, the non-party 1's objection to the non-party 2's transfer of the ownership registration No. 971's request for the non-party 1's transfer of ownership is still necessary for the non-party 2's request.

In addition, since the respondent does not have any assertion and vindication as to the other source of right to use the building in this case, the applicant's request for disposition of rejection against the respondent as the owner of the building in this case is sufficient to vindicate the right to preserve the building. In addition, in addition to the whole purport of pleading in each description of evidence 3-1 and 4 of the wallet No. 3 presumed to have the authenticity since it is an official document, the applicant was awarded a successful bid for the building in this case on June 18, 1973 and did not acquire the ownership, but the respondent 1 did not receive such intention while the respondent filed a lawsuit against the applicant for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer, but the respondent 1 was sentenced to the judgment against the respondent on July 9, 1974 and the judgment against the respondent became final and conclusive on August 7, 1974, and therefore, if it is not urgently required to do so, the applicant is likely to have significant damage to the applicant and the applicant has already made a deposit of KRW 3500,00 as security.

Therefore, the original judgment that accepted the application of this case with reasonable grounds is justifiable and without merit, and thus, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 95, and 93 of the same Act to the burden of the appeal cost.

[Attachment]

Judges Gangseo-il (Presiding Judge) Park Jong-ho