[2] The time when the debtor can seek cancellation of the principal registration based on provisional registration and provisional registration of collateral from the transfer for security established prior to the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act, etc.

[3] The elements for recognizing that the ownership was finally transferred to an obligee by means of the settlement of attribution in the event of transfer for security in an weak sense

[4] The case holding that since the mortgagee did not urge the person who created a security for transfer or the debtor to perform the settlement procedure, or did not demand cancellation of provisional registration or principal registration on condition of repayment of secured obligation, it cannot be said that the person who created a security for transfer or the debtor did not demand cancellation of provisional registration or principal registration on condition of repayment of secured obligation, such as payment of taxes and public charges for ten years or more after the principal registration was made

[5] The meaning of the legal principle of forfeiture or invalidation

[2] In the case of transfer for security established prior to the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act, even after the maturity of the obligation has expired, the obligor may at any time make repayment of the obligation and seek cancellation of the principal registration based on provisional registration and provisional registration, even if the obligee had the maturity of the obligation expired, before the obligee makes settlement by exercising the security right.

[3] In the event of transfer by security in an weak meaning, in order to recognize that the ownership of real estate was finally transferred to an obligee by the execution of the security right through the settlement of attribution, the fact that the obligee completed the principal registration on the basis of provisional registration is insufficient, and the real estate was evaluated at an adequate price, and then the proceeds are appropriated to the principal and interest of the secured claim, and if the amount of the appraisal is less than the amount of the secured claim, it should be recognized that the obligee

[4] The case holding that since the mortgagee did not urge the person who created a security for transfer or the debtor to perform the settlement procedure, or did not demand cancellation of provisional registration or principal registration on condition of repayment of secured debt, it cannot be said that the person who created a security for transfer or the debtor did not demand cancellation of provisional registration or principal registration during the period of exercising external ownership, such as paying taxes and public charges for ten years after the principal registration, or for ten years after the principal registration

[5] The legal principle of forfeiture or invalidation is a derivative principle based on the principle of trust and good faith, and it means that the exercise of the right is not permitted when it would result in a violation of the principle of trust and good faith, because the right holder had not exercised his/her right over a long-term period, even though there was an opportunity to exercise his/her right.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the non-party 1, who was a member of the plaintiff company, transferred the entire shares of the plaintiff company and retired from the plaintiff company on June 3, 1997, and the plaintiff company was dissolved on March 10, 1995 and continued to exist within the scope of the purpose of liquidation due to the expiration of the period of 20 years as stipulated by the articles of incorporation, and the liquidation procedure commenced on March 10, 1995. Thus, the non-party 1's withdrawal is not allowed in the liquidation procedure of the partnership company. Thus, the non-party 1 still holds the status as a member of the plaintiff company, and according to the judgment below duly confirmed, the non-party 1 explicitly consented in the resolution to continue the company of the plaintiff company on March 29, 201 and was elected as a representative member by the resolution. Accordingly, the non-party 1's rejection of the defendant's safety defense is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the qualifications of a representative of the partnership company.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. In case where a creditor has made a provisional registration on a real estate for the purpose of securing a claim before the provisional registration was enforced, but failed to obtain repayment by the due date, and the principal registration of transfer of ownership on the basis of the provisional registration was made, unless there is any special agreement between the parties that the obligation ceases to exist if the debtor fails to repay the secured obligation at the due date, and that the ownership of the real estate is finally attributed to the creditor, the principal registration is made for the purpose of securing a claim, and it shall be deemed that the so-called "a weak meaning", which is scheduled for settlement procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da38113, Feb. 17, 1995, etc.).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land of this case was originally owned by Nonparty 2, and that the non-party 2 obtained the above provisional registration from the defendant around December 1981, and that the non-party 80 million won was 2% per month for each of the interest on the land of this case and that the provisional registration of this case was 80 million won for the purpose of settling the principal and interest of this case on March 22, 1982, and that the provisional registration of this case was 40 million won for the purpose of this case's 70 billion won for the purpose of this case's provisional registration of this case's 80 million won for the purpose of settling the principal and interest of this case's 9.4 billion won for the purpose of this case's provisional registration of this case's 9.7 billion won for the purpose of this case's 9.5 billion won for each of the above provisional registration of this case's 19.3 billion won for the purpose of this case's provisional registration.

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

In the case of transfer for security established prior to the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act, even if the period of payment for an obligation falls short of the amount of a secured obligation, the obligor may at any time repay the obligation and seek cancellation of the principal registration based on provisional registration and provisional registration for the purpose of collateral security (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu62, Nov. 10, 1987, etc.). Meanwhile, in the case of a real estate transferred for security with weak meaning, the fact that the obligee completed the principal registration on the basis of provisional registration is insufficient to recognize that the ownership of the real estate was finally transferred to the obligee due to the execution of the security right by way of vested settlement, and it is not sufficient that the obligee made the principal registration on the basis of provisional registration, and then the remaining money was returned or the amount of appraisal is less than the amount of the secured obligation, it is recognized that the obligor had completed the procedure of settlement, such as giving notice to the obligor, and that there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a security right or the settlement of payment on the ground for objection.

4. As to the fifth ground for appeal

The legal principle of forfeiture or invalidation is a derivative principle based on the principle of trust and good faith, and it means that the exercise of rights is not permitted when the other party, who is the obligor, has already been obliged to exercise his rights for a long time, because the right holder did not exercise his rights over a long time, and the other party, who is the obligor, has a justifiable reason to believe that he would not exercise his rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72081, Mar. 26, 2004, etc.).

Examining the relevant evidence based on the legal principles of invalidation and the aforementioned weak meaning of transfer for security, in light of the records, it is reasonable for the court below to determine that the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to the provisional registration of this case and the right to cancellation of the principal registration of this case has not been exercised over a long period of time to the extent significantly unfair, or that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff did not exercise the right to the provisional registration of this case and the principal registration of this case, or

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)