2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads “sale contract” of the second to the second to the “sale reservation”, and reads “520,000,000” of the third to the fourth to the fourth to the third to the “520,00,000 won.” The part of the judgment of the court of first to the “3.... The assertion that the registration of ownership transfer of this case is valid in relation to the substantive relations” is cited as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) Defendant

Even if the provisional registration established on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) is applied to the provisional registration, it is obvious that there is no liquidation amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, upon delivery of the preparatory document dated April 25, 2017, notified that there is no liquidation amount and executes a security right pursuant to Article 3(1) of the aforementioned Act. Thus, the transfer of ownership registration of this case completed in the name of the Defendant based on the provisional registration of this case is valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship.

2) Plaintiff

A) Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act, in order for the Defendant, a creditor, to acquire ownership of the instant real estate by exercising a security right, the settlement money must be notified to the Plaintiff, the debtor, and if there is no settlement money, the purport must be notified. In this case, the existence and amount of settlement money must be determined based on the appraised value of the instant real estate at the time when the notice of exercise of a security right was given and the amount

B) However, around April 25, 2017, when the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the exercise of the security right during the instant lawsuit, or around that time, the market price of the instant real estate was KRW 751,94,70,00, while the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant to the Defendant at the time was over KRW 588,414,565 (inasmuch as there was no separate interest agreement on the loan debt owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act on the principal amount accrue, on the premise that ① the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant side as rent for the instant real estate, and the amount paid by the lessee as rent for the instant real estate to the Defendant side, ② the amount paid by Nonparty 1, who is the Plaintiff and his father’s father, to Nonparty 3, the Defendant’s husband’s husband, at the request of Nonparty 2, the Defendant’s husband, the Plaintiff’s husband, the Defendant’s husband, the Defendant’s repayment of the principal amount to the Defendant.

Therefore, based on either around April 25, 2017 or around that time, when the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the exercise of the security right, deducted KRW 588,414,565 from the loan debt owed by the Plaintiff at the time to the Defendant at the market price of KRW 751,94,70 of the instant real estate, the liquidation amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 163,530,135.

C) Nevertheless, the defendant notified the plaintiff that "no liquidation amount exists" while exercising the security right, which cannot be deemed a legitimate exercise of the security right, and eventually, the transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant based on the provisional registration of this case cannot be deemed a valid registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

B. Determination

1) Considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was no liquidation money that the Defendant has to pay to the Plaintiff, around April 25, 2017, or around that time, when taking into account the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the written evidence Nos. 4, 4, and 3, 5, and 14 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as well as the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraiser Nonparty 4’s appraisal.

A) In general, where a provisional registration or ownership transfer registration has been made for the purpose of security, the right to use and benefit from a security shall be deemed to exist in the person who has created the security right. However, if there is an agreement between the person who has created the security right and the person who has created the security right to use and benefit from the security, such agreement shall be complied with (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da40213, Dec. 11, 2001)

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not actually deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant and did not participate in the rent settlement; (b) the Plaintiff did not request the settlement of rent; (c) the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate; (d) the Plaintiff’s side (the Plaintiff’s father, Nonparty 1, etc.) paid a long-term rent to the Defendant without any particular objection; and (e) the Defendant borrowed a considerable amount of money even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was made, but the Defendant did not demand a separate interest or did not demand it; (e) the time of the instant transfer registration was made on the condition that the Plaintiff would pay rent to the Defendant (as of June 30, 2006), it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the secured party, who was the security interest, to use and profit exclusively from the instant real estate.

Therefore, after the above point ( June 30, 2006), the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant as rent for the instant real estate, and the amount that the lessee of the instant real estate paid to the Defendant as rent for the instant real estate to the Defendant’s side is determined to have been paid as rent for the instant real estate. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s side ( Nonparty 1, etc., his father’s father) and the Defendant had a relation of other claims and obligations between the Plaintiff’s side and the Defendant, the amount that the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, his father’s husband, paid to Nonparty 3, the Defendant’s husband, at the request of Nonparty 2, who is the Defendant’s husband, is deemed to have been paid as rent for the instant real estate, or paid as other claims and obligations. It does not mean that the Plaintiff’s claim was appropriated for the repayment of the borrowed loan owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s side.

B) If so, around April 25, 2017, when the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the exercise of the security right, or around that time, calculated the principal and interest of the borrowed debt owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s own, based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the principal amount is KRW 2) 542,385,00 and interest KRW 3) 265,621,378, including KRW 265,621,378.

At the above 808,006,378 won, when the Plaintiff’s portion of the reserve for repayment claimed by the Plaintiff deducts KRW 33,90,520 from the sum of the reserve for repayment (No. 1 through No. 16, Jun. 29, 2006) up to June 29, 2006, which was the day before the time when the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant a rent, the principal and interest of the borrowed debt owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant shall remain 74,015,858 won (the Plaintiff’s argument about the reserve for repayment (No. 17,348) after the point of time is rejected on the grounds as mentioned above).

C) On the other hand, the market price of the instant real estate was KRW 751,94,700 at the time the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the exercise of the security right.

D) Ultimately, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the Plaintiff’s own assertion (excluding the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the reimbursement reserve (a No. 17 through 348) since June 30, 2006), it is clear that there was no settlement money that the Defendant had to pay to the Plaintiff at the time of the execution of the said security right, in or around April 25, 2017, when the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the exercise of the security right, the principal and interest of the borrowed amount that the Plaintiff owes to the Defendant was KRW 774,015,858. On the other hand, the market price of the instant real estate at the time was over KRW 751,94,70, and the result of such calculation was over KRW 751,94,70, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no provision on the interest of the borrowed amount that the Defendant had to pay to the Plaintiff at the time of the

2) Therefore, the execution of the security right that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the absence of liquidation money is lawful. Ultimately, the transfer registration of ownership in this case is valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Young-ho (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that there was no separate interest agreement on the loan obligation owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant against the Defendant, and that only interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act with respect to the principal amount shall accrue.

2) The Plaintiff’s “loan” on the list of appropriation details attached to the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief dated May 14, 2018 (=178,00,000 +10,000 won +10,000 won (as of February 7, 2015) +10,397,900 won (as of February 25, 2005) +230,000,000 won (as of December 2, 2005) +113,987,100 won (as of December 29, 2006)

(3) The “interest on the principal on the basis of the date of appropriation for performance” attached to the Plaintiff’s preparatory document dated May 14, 2018 shall be the sum of each amount indicated (attached Form 2).

(4) The “amount of appropriation for performance” attached to the Plaintiff’s preparatory document dated May 14, 2018 is the sum of the respective amounts indicated in Nos. 1 through 16 (attached Form 3).

5) The Plaintiff’s own assertion that “interest was determined” in the first instance court, and presented specific arguments and evidence regarding the amount of interest, and reversed its position by stating that “No agreement was made with respect to interest.” It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court that there was a provision with respect to interest was against the truth or due to mistake, and rather, in light of ordinary transaction practices and the allegations and evidence submitted by both parties in the instant lawsuit, it appears that there was a provision regarding interest, and the difference in the amount should be further increased if calculated on this premise.