[근저당권설정등기절차이행][집10(3)민,185]
Where a third party has consented to provide the registration certificate, certificate of personal seal impression and seal of real estate as security while delivering them to a third party, the liability of the said security provider in the event that the documents and seal are entered the number of third parties other than those who have been directly delivered through normal transactions, and the third party has set up a mortgage.
As long as a right certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, or seal is delivered for debt security, even if the mortgagee, debtor, or collateral is different from the facts, the establishment of a apparent representation does not
Articles 122 and 126 of the Civil Act
Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Board
United Kingdom of Justice
Seoul High Court Decision 61Do1052 delivered on March 28, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 61Do1052 delivered on March 28, 1962
The appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as follows.
The gist of the Reasons for Appeal by the court below is that, although the defendant consented to the establishment of mortgage on the object of this case which is owned by the defendant against the non-party 1, the defendant did not grant the right of appointment to the non-party 12 as a cover for the claim against the non-party 12, so if the court below acknowledged that the contract to establish mortgage on the object of this case which was owned by the plaintiff as a collateral for the claim against the non-party 12, is valid, the defendant provided the above right of appointment to the above non-party 120, and the above Kim Jong-ok was legally appointed, the court below determined that the above act of establishing mortgage was valid without any authority of the plaintiff 1, and it was unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the agent's act of establishing mortgage on the plaintiff 120, and the defendant delivered the above document to the non-party 122 as collateral for the defendant's obligation to the non-party 120, which was not the defendant's duty of proof, and delivered the above document and the record to the non-party 120.
Therefore, the issue is an independent opinion and without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,