In a case where a person who sold a real estate and transferred it to the registration is restored to the registration by a lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the reason of cancellation of a sales contract, whether the person who received a decision of provisional seizure from the purchaser before the cancellation of the sales contract may seek revocation of the provisional seizure

Even if a person who sold a provisional attachment real estate and made a provisional attachment registration, has received a final decision in favor of him/her to cancel the sale contract and received the ownership transfer registration under his/her own name by filing a lawsuit to cancel the ownership transfer registration for this reason, he/she shall not prejudice the third party who acquired a new right based on the contract prior to the cancellation of the above sale contract, as an exception to the prompt effect of cancellation, and the third party's scope shall include a provisional attachment creditor of the goods which are the object of the payment based on the contract. Therefore, the circumstances that the seller received the provisional attachment registration from the buyer before the cancellation of the above contract cannot be deemed to change the circumstances that the seller received the ownership transfer registration,

The proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act; Article 706(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Rain fever

Credit Guarantee Fund

1. The petitioner's application of this case is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

The decision of provisional seizure made on April 26, 1990 by a member of a party with respect to provisional seizure cases against real estate of 90Ka963 between the respondent and the non-applicant and the non-applicant 1st century shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent and a declaration of provisional execution.

The respondent filed an application for provisional seizure against a company other than the applicant for a claim for reimbursement of KRW 50,00,000 against a limited liability company other than the applicant as a right to preserve the claim for reimbursement of KRW 50,00,000 against the non-applicant as a right to preserve the claim for reimbursement of KRW 90,963 as a party member, and upon the application of the party member, the fact that the provisional seizure registration was completed on April 30, 1990 by making a provisional seizure decision on the real estate of this case on April 26, 190 upon the application of the party member, is no dispute between the parties.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the non-applicant company for cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the real estate of this case, which was originally owned by the applicant as Gwangju District Court 91Kadan2158, and the judgment became final and conclusive after winning the lawsuit on February 3, 1993. Accordingly, the decision of provisional seizure of this case is deemed to have changed in circumstances where the need to preserve the real estate has ceased to exist (the applicant's assertion is not clear, but the above assertion is a statement that the ownership transfer registration of the company other than the application of this case will be cancelled, and the real estate of this case will eventually be reverted to the owner of the applicant, and therefore, the decision of provisional seizure of this case should be cancelled since it was limited to the real estate of this case owned by the applicant, not the debtor).

Therefore, in light of the above facts in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a certified copy of judgment), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (a certified evidence of confirmation, and a part of official document) to which authenticity is established, and the whole purport of pleadings, the above judgment becomes final and conclusive in the above case against the non-applicant company (a copy of the register of the real estate of this case submitted by the respondent, the above registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-applicant company of this case was cancelled as the respondent's application subrogated after the filing of the application of this case). Meanwhile, the reason for the above judgment is that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the applicant, and the applicant did not pay the balance to the non-applicant company and did not pay the balance, so the applicant did not have the right to the real estate of this case to cancel the provisional seizure order of this case with the declaration of intention to cancel the above sale contract of this case as to the real estate of this case. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the applicant had the right to the real estate of this case which was restored before the cancellation of the sale contract of this case.

If so, there is no assertion or proof that there is any change in circumstances to revoke the provisional seizure order of this case, the applicant's application of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the applicant. The court below's decision is delivered with the disposition of this case where there is no proof that there is a change in circumstances to which the provisional seizure order of this case should be revoked.

Judges Shin Jae-sik (Presiding Judge) et al.