Real Estate Practice Group
Dismissal of a Mandatory Provisional Injunction Seeking Removal of an …
2026-06-09
1. Facts and Background
Client A (the obligor) is a business operating from a unit within an aggregate
(multi-unit) building, and had installed and used a sign sheet on the exterior
glass of the building for purposes of business identification (the
"Sign"). Certain co-owners of units in the building (the obligees)
contended that the Sign had been installed on a common-area surface contrary to
the common interests of the co-owners and, in advance of any judgment on the
merits, applied for a mandatory provisional injunction requiring immediate removal
of the Sign and, in the event of non-compliance, authorizing removal by the
court bailiff at the obligor's expense. Concluding that immediate removal at
the provisional-injunction stage might cause irreparable harm to its business,
Client A retained LKP to defend the provisional-injunction application.
2. Key Legal Issues
The principal issues were: (i) whether the exterior-glass surface on which the
Sign was installed constituted a common area to which Article 5(1) of the Act
on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings applies, and whether
installation of the Sign without a resolution of the management body or
consultation with the management office amounted to conduct "contrary to
the common interests of the co-owners"; (ii) whether, given that an
application of this kind seeks a so-called "satisfaction-type"
provisional injunction that creates a legal relationship substantively
equivalent to the relief sought in the principal action, the obligees had
discharged the heightened standard of prima facie proof applicable to such
applications, which requires a higher level of demonstration of both the
protected right and the necessity for preservation than ordinary provisional
measures; and (iii) whether, in light of the location and scale of the Sign and
the status of signs installed by other tenants on the same exterior glass,
there was an imminent obstruction of or risk to the use or safety of the
building attributable to the Sign, and whether any harm alleged by the obligees
was of a nature that could be recovered through the principal action and
monetary compensation.
3. Implementation and Outcome
LKP (i) organized, on an item-by-item basis, the proposition that the materials
submitted by the obligees did not reach the heightened standard of prima facie
proof required, with respect to either the protected right or the necessity for
preservation, in a satisfaction-type provisional injunction; (ii) compiled and
submitted photographic and dimensional materials demonstrating, on an objective
basis, that — having regard to the location and scale of the Sign and the
status of signs installed by other tenants on the same exterior-glass surfaces
— installation of the Sign did not create any imminent obstruction of or risk
to the use or safety of the building for the obligees or for other tenants; and
(iii) emphasized, in oral argument, that any infringement of ownership rights
alleged by the obligees would be of a nature recoverable through the principal
action and monetary compensation, and that there were no circumstances
suggesting that any significant harm not readily remediable in the principal
action would arise, or that the purpose of the action would be frustrated, in
the absence of an immediate removal order before judgment on the merits. The competent
court found the obligees' application to be without merit, dismissed the
application in full, and ordered the obligees to bear the costs of the
proceedings. The case is of practical significance in showing how, in disputes
over exterior signs on aggregate buildings, procedural design and oral argument
strategy can be structured at the provisional-injunction stage — ahead of the
principal action — so as to maintain the client's stable business operations.
