logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1973. 8. 29.자 73마657 결정
[가등기가처분결정에대한재항고][집21(2)민,182]
Main Issues

The nature of provisional registration under the Registration of Real Estate Act

Summary of Judgment

The provisional disposition under the Registration of Real Estate Act is a preservative measure which does not require any conflict of interest between the parties, and it is only the effect of preserving the order of priority of the principal registration, so there is no room to apply the provisions concerning provisional disposition under the Civil Procedure Act, different from the provisional disposition under the Civil Procedure

[Reference Provisions]

Article 37 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 38 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Re-appellant

Re-appellant

United States of America

Jeju District Court Decision 70Ra13 delivered on May 26, 1973

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Re-appellant's ground of reappeal:

The provisional disposition of provisional registration under the Registration of Real Estate Act is a preservative measure which does not require any conflict between the parties' interests, and its effect is only the preservation of the order of the principal registration. Thus, as there is no room to apply the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act with regard to provisional disposition different from the provisional disposition under the Civil Procedure Act, the court of the lawsuit of the lawsuit of provisional registration should pay attention to the handling of the vindication of the cause of provisional registration, and as such, the court of the lawsuit of the lawsuit of the lawsuit of provisional registration should investigate and examine whether the vindication is not sufficient. Accordingly, according to the records, the court below's reasoning that the appellant's explanation is insufficient as a vindication of the cause of provisional registration in light of other documents at the same time, and there is no other vindication, which rejected the appellant's appeal on the ground that there is no error of law such

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow
본문참조조문
기타문서