The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On November 1, 1984, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiff 2 on the real estate of this case was made for the purpose of securing KRW 30 million borrowed from the defendant on November 1, 1984. Rather, the court below recognized the fact that the above plaintiff made the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case under the condition that the defendant takes over the above plaintiff's repayment of the above loan to the defendant, the secured obligation against the non-party 1 bank, and the obligation against the non-party 1 guarantee company against the non-party 2.

In addition, Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Act shall not apply to the case where the obligor transfers other property rights than the object borrowed in the future of the obligee, and the transfer of such rights is not to secure the performance of the obligation, but to the other party entirely in lieu of the obligation, that is, in the case of payment in kind, where the market price exceeds the principal and interest of the obligation, even if the payment in kind. (See Supreme Court Decision 67Da2227 delivered on January 31, 1968). Thus, the judgment of the court below

On the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership of this case was made for the purpose of securing the obligation against the defendant of the plaintiff 2, the plaintiffs sought confirmation of ownership transfer at the same time on the condition that the above plaintiff's ownership is held, and seek implementation of ownership transfer registration on the condition that the remaining obligation is repaid, and seek preliminary cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the defendant. As seen above, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion as to the cause of registration cancellation and made a substitute for the defendant's obligation. Further, the court below concluded a new sales contract with the plaintiffs around September 1987 with the price of 250 million won as the down payment and received 25 million won as the down payment from the defendant around September 10, 1989 because the plaintiffs failed to pay the remaining price and the defendant asserted that the above re-sale contract becomes null and void since January 1, 1989. In such a case, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to whether the plaintiffs' claim was accepted after the plaintiff's non-performance of the above contract.

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.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho