2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of security on August 29, 1974, and deliver each of the above real estate to the plaintiff as to the plaintiff 5-1 forest land, 5-6 forest land, 150-1 forest land, 150-1 forest land, 5-4 forest land, 151 forest land, 5-4 forest land, 151 forest land, 151 forest land, 15

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In addition, in light of the above evidence No. 1-2, 2, 3, and 5 (Evidence No. 3 of the same No. 2), Gap evidence No. 14-2, Eul evidence No. 14-7, Eul evidence No. 1, 4, and 5, and the whole purport of the pleading at the trial of the non-party No. 2, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have no dispute over the establishment of the above No. 1-2, 2, 3, and 40-2, 150-2, 2, and 41-2, 150-3, 200-7, 200-7, 1,000-7, 1,000-7, 1,000-7, 2,000-1,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,00-7,000-7,00.

With respect to the plaintiff's assertion that the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is merely a security for transfer within the weak meaning of the contract, the defendant's attorney argues that the above contract is a sales contract for repurchase with a clear statement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, so the name of the above contract is called a sales contract for repurchase with a special agreement for repurchase. Although the contents and the receipt, etc. also have the term of repurchase, it is not necessarily attributable to the terms and conditions of the contract in determining whether the contract has been entered into as true between the parties. Rather, as seen above, as mentioned in the above recognition, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is equivalent to the rate of the principal borrowed from the defendant and the due date for redemption, and the contract amount is also equivalent to one-month agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to be deducted at the time of repurchase, and the transfer registration cost is also equivalent to one-month agreement, and it is assumed that the plaintiff's assertion that the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant did not have the nature of the contract as a security for the plaintiff's transfer of the property and its obligation.

2. However, the Plaintiff’s legal representative asserts that the reservation portion of the said contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which was in violation of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, is null and void. As such, the following can be seen as to whether the value of the said contract’s object as at the time of the reservation exceeds the aggregate amount of the said loan and the interest accrued therefrom.

In light of the aforementioned purport of the pleading, it is clear that the sum of interest within the limit prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act and interest thereon will be KRW 2,509,875. On the other hand, evidence Nos. 8-1, and evidence Nos. 4, and evidence Nos. 8-4, and evidence Nos. 2, 1, 1, 4 and 5 as well as testimony of Non-party No. 2, 1, 4 and Non-party No. 5, among the above collateral collateral objects, the above collateral amount was 2,00 square meters and 10 won at the market price at the time of reservation of the real estate except for above 2,18,00 won and above above ground buildings and trees, and it is hard to believe that the above collateral No. 3 and the testimony of Non-party No. 4 had been purchased at the time of the above 0-party No. 1, 300,000 won at the time of the above promise, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the above evidence No. 4 and the above testimony of Non-party No.

Thus, since the value of the secured object at the time of the above promise clearly exceeds the aggregate amount of the principal and interest of the loan, the reservation portion for return of the substitute shall be null and void pursuant to Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, and the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be effective only as a security for transfer. On the other hand, with respect to the plaintiff's above loan principal and interest of the loan and the delayed damages, there has already been a valid deposit from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the above collateral security has also been extinguished.

3. On October 9, 1972, the defendant's attorney argued that the plaintiff received gold KRW 30,000 from the defendant as the director's expense and transferred the real estate in this case to the defendant and moved to another place. The plaintiff argued that the ownership of the real estate in this case was reverted to the defendant as a new fact. The plaintiff did not confirm that the above KRW 30,00 was paid as consolation money from the position of driving away or that it was nothing more than a new loan, and that there was ownership of the defendant. Thus, the defendant's attorney did not confirm that there was ownership of the defendant. Accordingly, according to the above evidence and evidence No. 7, without any dispute over the establishment, Eul's testimony at the court below, some testimony at the above original court, and the testimony at the court of the non-party 2's trial, the plaintiff's acceptance of the above KRW 30,000 was invalid after the return of the promise of the above substitute, or the plaintiff did not accept the new claim for the ownership of the real estate within seven days.

4. If so, at the time of the extinguishment of the obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is obligated to take procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of security as of August 29, 1974, the date of the deposit for the payment of the real estate in this case, which was delivered to the plaintiff for the security, and to again deliver the real estate in this case, which was delivered for the security, to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for each performance should be accepted as reasonable. Thus, the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair and reasonable, and the plaintiff's appeal is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed number of persons (Presiding Judge)