According to the judgment of the court below, within the overall title of the reason why the court below rejected the plaintiff's defense under Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in dispute was made by the promise for payment in kind, it is clear that the defendant made a prior confession that the above registration of transfer was made due to the lapse of the time limit for the promise for payment in kind at the second instance trial of the court of first instance, which is prior to the plaintiff's assertion of the confession. However, according to the above fifth oral proceedings (Chapter 95) in the record, according to the above contents of the fifth oral proceedings (Chapter 95), the court below stated that the plaintiff first made a promise for payment in kind, and stated that the reservation was in violation of Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Act, and that the withdrawal of the confession and the other party's statement in the court of first instance which was made by the court of first instance would not have any clear effect on the withdrawal of the defendant's statement before the judgment.

The second ground for appeal is examined as follows.

The judgment of the court below rejected the defendant's claim on the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant 1 should be sold at the market price of 700,000 won, although the defendant sold the real estate at the market price of 2.5 million won, in selling the real estate to exercise the security right as stated in its reasoning, the defendant did not have any evidence to prove that the defendant had had intention or negligence as to the disposal of the real estate in dispute, and that the difference between the market price of 2.5 million won and the sale price of the real estate was caused by the defendant's intention or negligence, and that the defendant sought compensation for damages to the defendant. However, in selling the real estate in order to satisfy the secured claim, the court below's decision that the secured party had a duty to pay attention to the sale of the real estate at the reasonable price was just and reasonable without any special reason for the defendant's determination that the real estate was sold at the market price of 2.5 million won as of September 28, 196.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 406 and 400 of the Civil Procedure Act according to the consistent opinion of all participating judges, omitting judgment on other points in the grounds of appeal.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-won Park Jae-won