[소유권이전등기말소][공1980.6.15.(634),12801]
In the case of a person who has a legitimate interest in payment by a third party;
In the event that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Nonparty and provided real estate owned by the Nonparty as a security for transfer, and again the said Nonparty borrowed the principal and interest and registration expenses to be received from the Plaintiff and registered the ownership transfer to the Defendant, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who has a legitimate interest in repaying the Nonparty’s obligation to the Defendant.
Article 469 of the Civil Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1
Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1702 delivered on October 18, 1979
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below selected the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 to the non-party 3 on July 28, 1972 with an annual interest rate of 10,00 won, 5% per month, and 10.27 on the real estate of this case provided by the above non-party 3 with an annual interest rate of 10,000 won, and decided that the above non-party 3 had a provisional registration of the right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the above non-party 1's name, but the above non-party 3 did not pay the principal and interest on the above provisional registration of 10.30 on October 30 of the same year, the court below rejected the above non-party 2's principal and interest rate of 10,000 won, 30,000 won per annum 10,000 won per annum from the non-party 3 on July 7, 1972.
However, as determined by the court below, if the non-party 1 et al., as well as the amount of KRW 200,000 as well as the amount of KRW 30,000 as agreed upon by the non-party 3, who is the debtor, provided this real estate as security and borrowed KRW 240,000 from the defendant for the purpose of preventing the loss of real estate ownership, the plaintiff, who is the owner of this real estate, can lawfully repay this debt to the defendant in order to prevent the loss of real estate ownership. If the plaintiff extinguished the debt against the defendant with the above non-party, unless there are other special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the claim against the non-party 3 as collateral against the non-party 3 will be extinguished. Thus, if it is sufficient for the plaintiff to extinguish the defendant's claim on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiff can claim the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case on behalf of the above non-party 1, etc.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that the payment deposit made on behalf of the above non-party 1's heir falls short of the interest claim against the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 shall be deemed to have affected the judgment as a misunderstanding of the
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed by accepting the plaintiff's ground of appeal and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)