Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

Therefore, as the meaning of the present security, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff who seeks to carry out the name and transfer of each of the above real estate, the ownership transfer of which is registered in the future of the plaintiff, to order the building listed in the attached Form 1 and deliver each land listed in the attached Form 2, unless there are any particular circumstances.

2. As to this, the defendant

(1) If the Plaintiff completed the procedure for ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant real estate, it shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 23 subparagraph 9 of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act, and since the Plaintiff Union is not yet organized at the general meeting of its members, it shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Do governor pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the Addenda to the same Act, and thus, the ownership transfer registration already completed in the future

The facts that the district of the Plaintiff’s association is 3,865 information do not conflict between the parties. However, according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Government Organization Act and Article 20(15)44 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, the authority of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the approval of the resolution of the farmland improvement association’s general meeting under Article 9(2) of the Addenda of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act was delegated to the Do governor. The above evidence Nos. 4 and 8-2 of the above evidence Nos. 8 of the court below’s witness Nos. 4 and 1 of the court below’s testimony and the whole purport of the party’s argument in part of the documents verification results, the real estate of this case was transferred to the Plaintiff to the same Do governor after the Plaintiff association underwent the same procedure from the Defendant according to the direction of the Do governor, the supervisory authority of the Plaintiff’s association under the above delegation.

In February 12, 1973, it can be recognized that the above real estate was sold and disposed as soon as possible, and that it was ordered to complete the compensation measures as soon as possible, so the defense is groundless.

(2) In other words, the defendant, as a collateral for the repayment of indemnity against the defendant to be established in the future at the time of the above audit, issued relevant documents at the time of the registration of establishment of the real estate in the future of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's promise to establish the ownership transfer in his future is the registration of the cause community, but there is no proof, and it can be recognized that the real estate in this case has been duly registered by the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in full view of the records of No. 6-2 (internal decision) and the result of the above verification conducted by the court below, since it can be recognized that the real estate in this case has been duly registered by the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the future of the plaintiff.

(3) In other words, the defendant is unable to acquire the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, which is farmland that the plaintiff is not a farmer, and thus the above provision of security or the above transfer of ownership is null and void. However, even if the plaintiff union is not a farmer, it does not have acquired the farmland as security, but does not prohibit the transfer of the mortgaged farmland for the exercise of security right. As seen above, as a claim security protocol against the defendant, the plaintiff filed a claim for this case against the defendant at the present time in order to acquire the real estate and exercise the security right.

(4) In other words, the Defendant’s real estate is equivalent to KRW 20 million at the market price, and the amount to be handled by the Defendant currently responsible and disposed of at least KRW 1.7 million. While the Plaintiff’s real estate was determined and appropriated for repayment of KRW 8.170,000,00, the Plaintiff’s real estate is an invalid juristic act contrary to social order. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the market price of the real estate of this case is identical to the Defendant’s assertion, and the said decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection at the Board of Audit and Inspection at the same time has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, and the Plaintiff has the real estate as a collateral for the amount to be compensated by the Defendant. Thus, there is no ground for the above dispute.

(5) In other words, the Defendant asserts that the real estate in this case was transferred to the Plaintiff as the obligation to secure a debt, and that there was no amount of the Defendant’s liability for compensation by the criminal judgment, which is superior to the judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and that the above security ground has ceased to exist, the claim for objection based on the premise that the Plaintiff is holding ownership

However, there is no legal principle that the judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection on the existence of the defendant's liability for compensation is invalidated by a criminal judgment, or that the judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection is more effective than that of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and that the judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection is a title of debt such as the final and conclusive judgment. However, as seen above, the fact that the amount of the judgment in accordance with the order of compensation by the Board of Audit and Inspection has not yet been fully paid is as shown in the above. Therefore, even if the defendant did not cause damage to the plaintiff, as alleged in the defendant's domestic affairs, even if the judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection was erroneous

(6) The defendant's registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff for the real estate of this case is not only for the purpose of security, and there is no ownership. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek an explanation or delivery of the collateral. However, since the secured party can seek an explanation or delivery of the collateral for the execution of the security right, the above dispute is groundless.

(7) The Defendant again agreed with the Plaintiff head of the Plaintiff association and the Defendant on November 29, 1975. In other words, as at the time of the above request for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration due to the invalidity of the cause of the instant real estate which was pending before Daejeon District Court (75 A. 375), the Defendant shall immediately make the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant, and if the Plaintiff won the registration, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff only 1,741,34 of the amount determined by the Board of Audit and Inspection within 2 months from the date of the receipt of the registration of ownership transfer. The Defendant shall be deemed to have agreed upon the Plaintiff at the time of the above request for the cancellation of the title transfer registration, and the Defendant shall not be deemed to have agreed upon the Plaintiff at the time of the above request for the cancellation of the title transfer registration to the Plaintiff at the time of the first instance court (excluding the Plaintiff’s 75Na1207), and the Defendant shall be deemed to have not been able to immediately file a request for the cancellation registration of the title transfer registration with the Plaintiff 1.

3. If so, in order to execute the security right, the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1 and the plaintiff's claim for objection against the real estate stated in the attached list No. 2 will be accepted with reasonable grounds. Thus, the original judgment with the same conclusion is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of losing the

[Attachment List]

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)