The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In a loan for consumption, if the establishment registration was completed by a mortgage agreement for the purpose of security of the obligation, the debtor's repayment is a prior obligation prior to the registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage, and it cannot be said that there is a concurrent repayment relationship with the repayment of the obligation. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiff's demand in return for delivery of all documents and documents necessary for the application for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage in deposit of the obligation is a condition for deposit receipt, and unless the creditor accepts it, the repayment does not take effect because it is not performed according to the principal place of the obligation, and even if the creditor sent a written consent for withdrawal of the deposit for repayment and deposited additional repayment with all remaining obligations of the same month, it is obvious that it is the fact after the closing of argument in the court below. Thus, the ground of appeal cannot be justified

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)