According to the judgment of the court below, the court below held on September 6, 1980 that the plaintiff lent gold 5,600,000 won to the non-party on December 6 of the same year, the due date for payment, and the real estate of this case owned by the non-party on September 19, 199 of the same year, the provisional registration was made for the preservation of the right to request ownership transfer registration, but thereafter, the above real estate was duly confirmed on March 8, 1984 that the principal registration based on the above provisional registration was completed for the above provisional registration, and the real estate of this case was already provided for the purpose of the security at the time of establishment of the above provisional registration, so it cannot be deemed as a security for transfer of ownership, and thereafter the principal registration based on the above provisional registration was completed only at one stage for the execution of the above provisional registration, and it does not constitute an offer of security under Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the plaintiff's physical designation of this case under the premise that it is a mortgagee under Article 41 of the Framework Act, and its disposition of seizure.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, Article 42 (2) of the same Act provides that "the term "property transferred for security" means the property substantially becoming the object of security for an obligation to the transferor when a taxpayer transfers the property through a contract between the parties concerned," and according to the facts established by the court below, the principal registration based on the above provisional registration of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff in the real estate of this case is a weak meaning of the procedure for settlement, which is planned as a means to enforce a security right to the above claim based on the above provisional registration, and thus it constitutes a property transferred for security under Article 42 of the same Act, which is substantially an object of security for an obligation to the plaintiff in fact (refer to Supreme Court Decision 83Nu661 delivered on December 26, 1984). However, the court below's decision that the above non-party merely was a one step to satisfy the secured claim by exercising the security right on the ground that the above non-party did not repay the above obligation, and thus cannot be deemed a real estate in this case due to be justified or justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)