[근저당권설정등기말소][집20(3)민,138]
(a) there is no change in the basis of the claim if it is merely a difference in the method of resolution in a dispute concerning the same living facts or the same economic interest;
B. Under the circumstances where a deceiving person arbitrarily issues his/her certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to a deceiving person, it is an example that the deceiving person steals his/her certificate of personal seal impression, etc. (not being issued) unless there are special circumstances.
A. If there is a difference in the method of resolution in a dispute over the same living facts or the same economic interest, there is no change in the basis of the claim, and if the defendant sought cancellation of the above registration on the ground that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage in the future was null and void, and on this premise, seeks to exchange the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made in the name of the defendant on the ground of the successful bid after the execution of the above right to collateral security, it cannot be said that the basis of the
B. Under the circumstances where a deceiving person arbitrarily issues his/her certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to a deceiving person, it is an example that the deceiving person steals his/her certificate of personal seal impression, etc. (not being issued) unless there are special circumstances.
Articles 235 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act
Oral Rule
East Securities Corporation
Seoul High Court Decision 71Na743 delivered on May 19, 1972, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na743 delivered on May 19, 1972
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant’s Attorney
The purport of recognizing the change of a lawsuit is to ensure the rational resolution of a dispute between the parties who are requested as a lawsuit and to be in conformity with the economy at the same time. Therefore, if there is a difference in the method of resolution in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute, there is no change in the basis of the claim. According to the records, the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security in the future of the defendant on the ground that the registration of the right to collateral security in the future of the defendant is null and void on the ground that the registration of the right to collateral security in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security in the future of the defendant on the ground that the registration of the right to collateral security has become void on the ground that the registration of the right to collateral security in the future of the defendant on the ground that the registration of the right to collateral security was cancelled ex officio on the ground that the registration of the right to collateral security was cancelled on the premise that the registration of the right to collateral security is null and void, the court below's decision is justifiable, and there is no error in the interpretation of law.
Judgment on ground of appeal No. 2 by such agent
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it was found that Nonparty 1 was unaware of Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression on the ground that Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression was stolen by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression impression was not known to the court below, and that Nonparty 3 was unaware of Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression impression on the ground that Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression impression was stolen by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression impression impression was not known to the court below, and that Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression was stolen by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression impression was not known to the court below, and thus, Nonparty 3 knew that it was necessary for Nonparty 4 to issue the above personal seal impression impression on the ground that Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression impression was stolen by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression was not known to the court below, and thus, Nonparty 3 was aware of the facts that it was necessary for Nonparty 4’s personal seal impression to the court below.
Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)