추심금
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, extinguished the secured obligation of the instant pledge contract as repayment.
We rejected all the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant may oppose the Plaintiff with the return of the lease deposit against B, etc.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the legal act in relation to
2. Examining the grounds of appeal No. 2 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to explain to the Defendant regarding the return clause of deposit, etc. at the time of the preparation of the instant written consent,” on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending
3. Examining the ground of appeal No. 3 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the contract to establish a pledge of this case between the Plaintiff and B cannot be deemed to have been agreed on on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on the termination of the agreement to
4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, since the effect of the pledge on claims is limited to incidental claims such as damages for delay of claims which are the object of the pledge, the pledgee on claims may directly collect claims which are the object of the pledge and claims for delay thereof, and apply them to the repayment of his own claims, only to the part concerning the amount of his own claims which
Supreme Court Decision 2005No. 25 Decided February 25, 2005