소유권이전등기청구권가압류의 효력 – 채권가압류와 비교하여

The Supreme Court is said to necessarily decide on the unconditional implementation (Supreme Court Nov. 24, 1989, Sentence 88DAKA25038 Judgment) when a debtor claimed the implementation of bond, which is put under provisional attachment, targeting the third debtor, and decide on the resolutive condition of provisional seizure (Nov. 101 1992. Sentence 92DA4680 en banc Decision) when a claim for ownership transition registration is put under provisional attachment, General money bond can be obstructed in the compulsory execution stage by creditor or the third debtor even if the debtor gets the unconditional implementation judgement. On the other hand, the judgment of implementation in the procedure of ownership transition registration is the decision of ordering the statement of intention. There is its ground as saying that, if this is decided, the debtor can unilaterally apply for transition registration, and that there is no way that this is obstructed by creditor or the third debtor. However, even if the creditor or the third debtor can obstruct this in its compulsory execution stage when there is judgement of commanding the payment of money bond, there is a doubt about which the third debtor is imposed the obligation of obstructing this in the compulsory execution stage once again on the compulsory execution of bond, which was decided on unconditional implementation, without legally logical inevitability or actual necessity, which will allow the judgment of unconditional implementation for the debtor of already having a burden forprovisional seizure. Accordingly, it is simple to rule the resolutive condition of the provisional seizure even in a claim for implementation of the bond with provisional attachment In the meantime, the Supreme Court acknowledges its validity (en banc Decision of the above) when the third debtor transfers the ownership of the object to the debtor and when the ownership is transfened again to the third party, even if the claim for ownership transition registration is put under provisional seizure. The Supreme Court is finding its ground in a sense as saying that there is no method of publicly announcing the provisional seizure of the claim for ownership transition registration. However, in a sense as saying that the provisional seizure of bond just prohibits disposition on its bond itself, but cannot be said to include even the restriction of disposal in the object of bond, the attitude of the above judgment is conclusively valid