[건물명도][집10(4)민,064]
In case of promising the transfer of real estate in lieu of the return of borrowed money, the real estate price at the time of the agreement may be recognized to have exceeded the borrowed amount indicated in the agreement at the market price at the time of the agreement, but there is a special circumstance as to the contents of the agreement allowing the secured party to request the delivery of collateral to dispose of the object of transfer for security as the secured party, notwithstanding the fact that the ownership
If the debtor fails to repay his/her obligation on the date of repayment, the price of the immovables owned by him/her shall be the amount of the claim to be sold to the creditor, and if the creditor has delivered documents necessary for the procedure for the registration of transfer of the owner of such immovables to the creditor in advance, and even if the creditor has not been reimbursed his/her obligation on the date of repayment and the registration of transfer was made in his/her name pursuant to the above agreement, and even if the market price of the immovables at the
Articles 608 and 607 of the Civil Act
Park Young-hwan
D. D.S.T.
Cheongju area in the first instance, Seoul High Court Decision 61No518 delivered on April 26, 1962
The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds for appeal by the defendant's agent are as shown in the attached appeal.
As to the second ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant decided to repay 80,000 won to the plaintiff not later than September 10, 1960. If the defendant fails to repay his debt on the repayment date, the price of the principal real estate owned by the defendant shall be the amount of credit and sold to the plaintiff. At that time, the defendant delivered all documents necessary for the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership to the real estate, and the defendant did not repay his debt on the payment date, so it can be recognized that the transfer of ownership is completed in the name of the plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement, and it cannot be recognized that the market price of the real estate in this case has a significant difference compared with the above amount of debt. On the premise that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the real estate in this case lawfully, the original judgment is liable to inform the plaintiff according to the ownership of the real estate in this case under the premise that the defendant acquired ownership of the real estate in this case, which is an object transferred for sale of the above real estate, without the consent of the court below as evidence No. 1, and that the real estate price of this judgment was not acquired by the defendant.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)