The competent court of the judgment on the application for revocation of provisional disposition

The judgment of the court ordering a provisional disposition in accordance with the provisions of Articles 706(3), 720, and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court ordering a provisional disposition in accordance with the provisions of Articles 706(3), 720, and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act. If the application for provisional disposition was rejected in the court of the second instance, and the application for provisional disposition was accepted in the court of the second instance, the judgment of the court of the second instance is the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the second instance, and even

Article 720 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 715 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 706(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Respondent 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 86Ka208 delivered on February 11, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

With respect to the Respondent’s ground of appeal:

1. According to the records, when the case of provisional disposition for the discontinuance of construction work filed by the respondent against the applicant was dismissed on January 23, 1985 at the Busan District Court, the original decision was modified on the condition that the respondent deposited 10 million won in the Busan District Court, and the original decision was accepted on August 13, 1986, and the court below ordered the respondent to file a lawsuit on September 23, 1986 at the request of the applicant. Meanwhile, the applicant filed an application for provisional disposition against the respondent on September 12, 1986 pursuant to special circumstances against the original court. Since the judgment for the provisional disposition is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court ordering the provisional disposition pursuant to Articles 706(3), 720, and 715 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is clear that the original court in this case is the cause of exclusive jurisdiction, and even if the lawsuit on the merits was pending in another court, it does not affect the above jurisdiction.

2. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below recognized that the respondent's right to share in the land of this case that the respondent wants to preserve is able to achieve its purpose with monetary compensation, and that the applicant's damage was enormous due to the suspension of the market-built construction work that has public nature as the basis of living of market merchants up to several hundreds, and that the applicant cancelled the provisional disposition on the condition that the applicant deposit money as security, such as the appraised value of the above co-owned share, shall be considered as a security, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)