[토지소유권이전등기등][공1994.3.15.(964),823]
Effect on interested parties in the registration of an agreement to use the registration of invalidation of cause;
In the event that Party A and Party B agree to take the method of completing the registration of transfer of a right to collateral security upon the establishment of a neighboring mortgage registration in the name of Party B, which was made in the name of Party B’s debt security agreement between Party B and Party B, the said agreement is merely an agreement between Party B and Party B to exploit the registration of transfer of a right to collateral security, which is to be made under the name of Party B, if the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of Party C, the invalidation of the cause of the said agreement, is a mere agreement to use the registration of transfer of a right to collateral security, which is to be made under the name of Party B, unless the invalidation of the cause is registered. Such agreement on utilization of a right to collateral security has already been made before the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security in the name of Party
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Da1630 Decided December 24, 1970 (Gong18309) (Gong1987, 145) 86Meu716 Decided December 9, 1986 (Gong1987, 170) (Gong1989, 1770)
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Defendant Lee-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daejeon District Court Decision 93Na1518 delivered on June 2, 1993
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The court below held that the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate in this case owned by the non-party 1, who was the co-defendant of the court of first instance, was completed in the non-party 2, who was the co-defendant of the court of first instance on August 9, 191, because the establishment of a mortgage was completed without agreement among them. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below as above is justified, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts such as the theory of lawsuit.
In addition, as determined by the court below, if the non-party 3 who represented the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the above non-party 1 on April 20, 1990 and paid all the price by the 30th of the same month, but the registration of transfer was not made on the same day on September 6, 191 after receiving a provisional disposition against the above non-party 1, which was issued on the same day. On September 17, 191, the above non-party 2 did not make an additional registration for the transfer to the defendant in the future on September 17, 191, the above non-party 1, as alleged by the defendant, established the right to collateral security against the defendant, and revoked the registration of transfer to the above non-party 2 and completed the registration under the above non-party 2's name instead of completing the registration of transfer to the above non-party 2's name, and thus, it is not justified by the agreement that the registration should be made under the above non-party 1's name.
As above, insofar as the Defendant cannot assert the agreement on the utilization of registration against the Plaintiff, even if there was no agreement on the utilization of registration between the above Nonparty 1 and the Defendant, or if there were errors identical with the theory of lawsuit in the determination of recognition that the above use of registration constitutes a juristic act of anti-social order that actively participated in the act of breach of trust, it will not affect the outcome. Ultimately, we cannot accept all the arguments.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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)