[2] In case where a mortgagee filed an application for auction on the ground of a default of the secured obligation, the time to determine the amount of the secured obligation (=the time of filing an application for auction) and whether the effect of the confirmation of the obligation can be reversed if the application for auction is withdrawn after the decision to commence auction

[2] In case where a mortgagee filed a request for auction on the grounds of a default of the secured obligation, the amount of the collateral security obligation shall be determined at the time of the request for auction, and the collateral security shall thereafter be treated as an ordinary mortgage. Thus, even if the request for auction was withdrawn after the commencement of auction by filing a request for auction, the effect of the confirmation of the obligation shall not be reversed.

1. As to the argument regarding the scope of the secured obligation under the right to collateral security

In the event that a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property does not take over the contractual status of the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property, but only the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property is exempted from the obligation and has made an additional registration of the change of the right to secure another's property, barring any special circumstance, the registration of change shall be limited to the obligation he/she has taken over to the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da40657 delivered on September 3, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1 acquired the debt of the non-party 2 with the non-party 3, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 3, etc.") on the basis of each finding of the evidence adopted in its judgment, and determined that the non-party 1, who was in the status of creditor of the non-party 2 like the non-party 3, was transferred the land of this case and the non-party 2 for collection of the debt of this case to the non-party 3 and the non-party 3, etc. who was transferred the land of this case to the non-party 1, as the non-party 3, etc. who was the non-party 2's right to collateral security, was not entitled to the non-party 1's waiver of the right to collateral security and thus, it is hard to view that the non-party 1 was not entitled to collateral obligation of the non-party 1, etc. in the process of establishing additional collateral.

2. As to the argument regarding confirmation of the secured obligation against the right to collateral security

In case where a mortgagee filed a request for auction on the ground of a default of a secured obligation, the amount of the collateral security obligation becomes final and conclusive at the time of the request for auction, and thereafter the right to collateral security is treated as an ordinary mortgage (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da25521, Dec. 9, 197). Thus, even if the request for auction was withdrawn after the commencement of auction by filing a request for auction, the effect of the confirmation of the obligation cannot be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu15601, Nov. 28, 1989).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 did not repay the debt, and that the non-party 3 et al., a joint mortgagee, filed a request for auction in the name of non-party 4 with respect to the land and building of this case, and determined that the non-party 4's request for auction was made based on the intention of the non-party 3 et al., a joint mortgagee, and that the debt of this case was specified at the time of the above request for auction, and that even if the request for auction was withdrawn thereafter, the specific effect of the debt is not reversed. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench, on the ground that there is a clear clerical error in the indication of Plaintiff 2 in the Disposition of the judgment below.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)