A. Whether acts in violation of provisional disposition and liability for damages exist

(b) Cases where a judgment contrary to the grounds for reversal of the judgment of remand is rendered;

Even if there has been an act in violation of provisional disposition, liability for damages due to a tort shall not be held liable unless there has been an infringement on the preserved right.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Republic of Korea (Attorney Kim Sung-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na219 delivered on February 15, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant’s Attorney

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below judged that the violation against the provisional disposition order aimed at preserving future risks is an infringement of the rights against the plaintiff's right, regardless of the lower court's lawsuit on the merits, which was conducted separately, and further, in this case, the defendant violated the provisional disposition order on the prohibition of disposal (the provisional disposition on the non-party, who was the co-defendant of the refund transmission, to the non-party, the provisional disposition on the prohibition of transfer of ownership), so long as the defendant registered the transfer of ownership to the non-party, barring special circumstances, there is no infringement on the right, and it cannot be said that there was no infringement on the right to be preserved, and that there was no agreement on the omission of the interim registration, and that the above conclusion does not affect the above conclusion.

However, according to the judgment of remand on this case, even if there was an act in violation of provisional disposition, it cannot be held liable for damages due to tort unless there is any infringement on the right to be preserved, and there is no agreement on omission of interim registration, and the plaintiff is unable to file a claim for transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant's country directly against the defendant's country. Thus, the State's completion of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party, which was a joint defendant, violates the contents of provisional disposition, but the plaintiff's claim to be compensated by provisional disposition cannot be held liable for damages on the ground that the contents of the claim cannot be said to be a violation of the right to be preserved by the defendant's country as the wife's consent. Thus, the judgment after remand is in violation of the provisional disposition decision after remand, and it is contrary to the grounds for reversal of the judgment of remand, barring special circumstances, that the judgment after remanding the above non-party's transfer of ownership against the above non-party's non-party's right to be preserved. Therefore, it is difficult to reverse the judgment without any other grounds for appeal.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)