beta
(영문) 대법원 1961. 10. 5. 선고 4294형상394 판결

[사문서위조,사문서위조행사등][집9형,136]

Main Issues

It shall be taken where a debtor such as lending and borrowing money delivers all documents required for the registration of ownership transfer to the creditor.

Summary of Judgment

In a case where a debtor has designated a real estate as a collateral and delivered all documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer to a creditor, if the debtor fails to pay his/her debts, the intention of the creditor to achieve the purpose of the security by completing the registration of ownership transfer of the specific real estate in the name of the creditor through the documents, etc. can be

Appellant, Defendant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, etc.

Reasons

In the lending and borrowing of money, when a debtor designated a real estate as collateral and delivered a letter of delegation of the seal impression of the owner of the real estate to the creditor, it is reasonable to view that the creditor had an intent to use the document and seal issued by the debtor to transfer the ownership of the specific real estate in the name of the creditor and to achieve the purpose of the security in the name of the creditor if the debtor fails to repay his debt at the time when the debtor becomes due, unless there is any special reason, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the creditor was in both the debtor and the debtor. Accordingly, even if the defendant did not make the transfer registration in the name of the creditor in the name of the debtor at the beginning of October 4289, in the case of transplantation of KRW 20,000,000 to the non-indicted 1, the monthly due date for 105 minutes shall be lent after the lapse of one month, and two copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the non-indicted 3 in the name of the deceased non-indicted 3, and even if the non-indicted 1 thereafter did not make the transfer.

Therefore, it is without authority to prepare and file an application for registration of transfer of ownership from the name of the defendant to the name of the defendant using the power of proxy of the seal impression affixed to Nonindicted 3, which the defendant received from Nonindicted 4, in the name of the defendant, and such application is not sufficient to prove that the entry in the name of the defendant in the name of Nonindicted 3 is false due to that reason. Therefore, the original judgment is illegal in violation of empirical rules and thus making gross mistake of facts.

Justices Cho Jin-jin (Presiding Justice)