1. As to the argument regarding the loan of funds

A. As to the assertion on the extinction of fund-backed claims, and the assertion on invalidity of an exclusive agreement on sale price, etc.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 채택 증거를 종합하여, 소외 주식회사가 이 사건 아파트 496세대를 신축함에 있어, 피고로부터 국민주택기금 203억 3,600만 원을 대출받고(세대당 4,100만 원, 이하 ‘기금대출’이라고 한다), 그에 대한 담보로 피고에게, 2005. 3. 29. 이 사건 아파트 부지에 관하여 채권최고액 264억 3,680만 원의 근저당권을 설정해주고, 이 사건 아파트 완공 후인 2005. 7. 21. 이 사건 아파트 496세대에 관하여 추가로 1순위 공동근저당권(이하 ‘1순위 근저당권’이라고 한다)을 설정해 준 사실, 피고가 소외 주식회사로부터 이 사건 아파트 중 분양된 51세대에 설정된 1순위 근저당권을 말소해 달라는 요청을 받고, 2005. 7. 29.경부터 2005. 9. 9.경까지 사이에 이를 말소해 준 사실, 그 후 소외 주식회사가 피고로부터 일반자금 20억 원을 대출받으면서(이하 ‘일반대출’이라고 한다) 그에 대한 담보로 2005. 9. 12. 피고에게 이 사건 아파트 중 298세대에 관하여 채권최고액 24억 원의 2순위 공동근저당권(이하 ‘2순위 근저당권’이라고 한다)을 설정해 주는 한편, 같은 날 원고로부터 86억 원을 대출받으면서 그에 대한 담보로 원고에게, 피고가 2순위 근저당권을 설정한 위 298세대 중 280세대에 관하여 채권최고액 93억 6,000만 원의 3순위 공동근저당권을 설정해 준 사실, 그 후 피고가 소외 주식회사로부터 추가로 20세대에 대한 근저당권을 말소해 달라는 요청을 받고 2005. 9. 13.경부터 2005. 10. 28.경까지 사이에 이 사건 아파트 중 20세대에 설정된 1순위 근저당권을 추가로 말소해 준 사실(이하 위 20세대를 ‘이 사건 20세대’라고 하고, 원고가 근저당권을 취득하기 전 1순위 근저당권이 말소된 위 51세대와 합하여 ‘이 사건 71세대’라고 한다), 그 후 소외 주식회사가 기금대출금 및 일반대출금의 지급을 연체하여, 피고의 신청에 따라 이 사건 아파트 중 283세대에 관하여 그 판시와 같은 임의경매절차 개시결정이 내려지고, 그 경매절차에서 2007. 12. 28. 그 판시와 같은 내용의 배당표들이 작성된 사실을 인정한 다음, 이 사건 71세대의 수분양자들이 이 사건 아파트의 분양대금을 피고가 관리하는 소외 주식회사의 계좌에 입금한 이상, 이 사건 71세대에 해당하는 소외 주식회사의 기금대출금 채무가 변제된 것으로 보아야 한다는 원고의 주장과, 피고가 소외 주식회사로 하여금 위 계좌에 입금된 이 사건 71세대의 분양대금을 인출하여 사용하도록 승낙하였으므로, 그로써 피고는 소외 주식회사에 기금대출과는 별도의 새로운 대출을 한 것이거나 기금대출채권을 포기한 것으로 보아야 한다는 원고의 주장에 대하여, 소외 주식회사가 이 사건 아파트의 수분양자들로부터 피고와 공동 관리하는 소외 주식회사의 계좌로 분양대금을 입금받아 오던 중, 자금사정이 어려워지자 계좌에 입금되어 있는 이 사건 71세대의 분양대금을 기금대출 상환이 아닌 다른 용도로 사용할 수 있도록 해줄 것을 피고에게 요청하여 피고로부터 승낙을 받고 이를 다른 용도로 사용하였고, 피고는 이 사건 71세대에 대하여 해당 세대의 기금대출금을 담보하기 위해 취득하였던 1순위 근저당권을 말소해 준 사실이 인정되기는 하지만, 기금대출의 채무자는 피고와 기금대출약정을 체결한 소외 주식회사로서 그 대출금의 상환주체 역시 소외 주식회사가라 할 것이므로, 이 사건 아파트의 수분양자가, 피고와 소외 주식회사가 공동으로 관리하는 예금계좌에 분양대금을 납입하였다고 하여 소외 주식회사의 기금대출금 채무가 변제된 것으로 볼 수 없고, 소외 주식회사가 그 분양대금을 이용하여 피고에게 대출금을 상환하는 절차를 마쳐야 비로소 기금대출금 채무가 변제된 것으로 볼 수 있을 뿐이며, 나아가 소외 주식회사가 수분양자로부터 받은 분양대금을 곧바로 기금대출금의 상환에 사용하지 않고 다른 용도에 사용하도록 피고가 승낙하였다고 하더라도, 그러한 사정만으로 이 사건 71세대의 기금대출금 채무가 변제된 후에 피고가 새로운 대출을 하였다거나 피고가 이 사건 71세대의 기금대출금 채권을 포기한 것으로 볼 수 없다는 이유로, 이를 각 배척하는 한편, 소외 주식회사는 피고로부터 대출받은 기금대출금 중 일부를 국민주택건설 이외의 용도로 사용하였는데, 피고가 그와 같은 사실을 알고도 기금대출금 회수조치를 취하지 아니한 채 계속 기금대출을 실행한 것은 강행규정인 주택법 제63조 제1항 등 국민주택기금 운용제한 규정에 위배되어 무효이고, 또한 기금대출금 변제에 사용되어야 할, 수분양자들이 소외 주식회사 계좌에 입금한 분양대금을 다른 용도로 전용하기로 한, 피고와 소외 주식회사 사이의 전용합의 역시 위 강행규정에 위배되어 무효라는 원고의 주장에 대하여도, 설령 소외 주식회사가 기금대출금을 국민주택건설 이외의 용도로 사용하였다고 할지라도, 이는 이미 이루어진 기금대출금을 일시에 회수할 수 있는 사유가 될지언정, 그로써 피고의 기금대출 자체가 무효로 된다고 볼 수 없고, 또한 원고가 주장하는 이른바 전용합의의 점도 국민주택기금 자체의 사용 문제가 아닌, 분양대금의 사용 문제일 뿐이므로, 그것이 국민주택기금 운용제한 규정에 위배되어 당연히 효력이 없다고 볼 것은 아니며, 나아가 설령 위 전용합의가 무효라고 하더라도 해당 금액의 기금대출금이 변제된 것으로 당연히 간주되거나 처리되는 것도 아니라는 이유로, 이를 모두 배척하였다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to interpretation of mandatory provisions, repayment and diversion of fund loans, or misconception of facts, incomplete hearing, or inconsistent reasoning due to violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds for

B. As to the defendant's assertion of breach of trust or violation of social order

The court below rejected the defendant's claim that the 71st generation of this case's 71 unit unit units' 71 unit 71 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7 unit 7.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no serious violation of law as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

C. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s trust was infringed in acquiring subordinated collateral security

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not immediately recover the fund loan from the sale price paid by the buyer and agreed to use it for other purposes in accordance with the deposit account management agreement with the non-party corporation, to the extent that it does not infringe on the plaintiff's trust, since the defendant cancelled the first right to collateral against the 71st generation without having been repaid the fund loan of the amount of KRW 41 million per household in violation of the National Housing Fund Operation and Management Rules or the practice on the collection of the fund loan, thereby evaluating the trust of the plaintiff who acquired the third right to collateral as to part of the apartment of this case by evaluating that the debt of the fund loan corresponding to this part was repaid and evaluating the collateral value.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

D. As to the plaintiff's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to the infringement of the plaintiff's subrogation right against 20 households of this case

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the waiver of the first right to collateral security against the 20 households of this case violated the plaintiff's right to subrogation, which is the subordinate collateral security, since the buyer paid the sales price to the non-party corporation in the deposit account, the defendant is obligated to cancel the first right to collateral security as a matter of course in accordance with the agreement with the non-party corporation. Thus, the cancellation of the first right to collateral security is deemed the defendant's obligation, and it cannot be deemed that it infringed the defendant's right to expectation of the subordinate collateral security.

However, this decision of the court below cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

First of all, even after examining the record, if the buyer of the apartment of this case pays the purchase price of the apartment of this case to the deposit account of the non-party corporation, it cannot be found that the non-party corporation agreed to cancel the first priority right of the household corresponding to the non-party corporation regardless of whether the non-party corporation paid the fund loan to the defendant with the money, and on the ground that the buyer who was not directly related to the defendant paid the purchase price to the non-party corporation, the defendant is not obliged to cancel the first priority right of the household that he purchased to the buyer.

Meanwhile, Article 368(1) of the Civil Act provides that "where a mortgage has been created on several immovable properties as security of the same claim, if the proceeds of the auction are distributed simultaneously, the allotment of the claim shall be determined in proportion to the proceeds of the auction of each immovable property." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "in cases where the proceeds of the auction of part of the immovables mentioned in the preceding paragraph are distributed first, the mortgagee may obtain full satisfaction of the claim out of the proceeds of the auction. In such cases, the mortgagee next in priority may exercise the mortgage by subrogation of the mortgagee to the extent of the amount which the mortgagee would have received out of the auction proceeds of other immovables in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph." In cases where a joint mortgage is established on several immovable properties, the right of subrogation of the mortgagee in accordance with the latter part of Article 368(2) of the Civil Act is recognized only if the joint mortgagee would have received out of the auction proceeds of some of the immovable properties which are the jointly mortgaged property before the joint mortgagee would have been entitled to the joint mortgagee's apportionment of the secured claim.

In light of the above legal principles, cancellation of the first-class mortgage set up by the 20 household of this case without being reimbursed the secured debt of this case with respect to the 20 household of this case can be deemed to have waived the right to collateral security, and thereby, the plaintiff's subrogation expectation was infringed. Thus, in the auction procedure of this case, the defendant cannot receive the distribution prior to the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff could have subrogated if he did not waive the right to collateral security.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of this part of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the cancellation of the defendant's right to collateral security against 20 households of this case cannot be seen as a waiver of a mortgage which infringes on the plaintiff's subrogation expectation, which is a junior collateral mortgagee, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the expectation of subrogation

2. As to the assertion regarding general loans

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the judgment below on the ground that the defendant extended a general loan of KRW 2 billion to the non-party corporation ( KRW 7 million per household) and set up a second-class mortgage with respect to 298 households among the apartment buildings of this case ( KRW 7 million per household), and it had been repaid a loan claim corresponding to 67 households, and cancelled the right to collateral against 67 households, the above 67 households' assertion that the loan amount corresponding to the above 67 households should be deducted from the defendant's general loan claim amount, there is no evidence to prove that the general loan amount claimed by the plaintiff has been repaid, and rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 (B).

However, it is difficult to accept such measures of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, the defendant prepared to the non-party corporation on September 12, 2005 a certificate of loan content (Evidence A76) to the effect that the non-party corporation loaned 7 million won per household to the non-party corporation for 298 households among the apartment buildings of this case and set up the second-class collateral security right (Evidence A76). The defendant had cancelled the second-class collateral security right after receiving repayment from the buyer or completing the repayment procedure with respect to the above 67 households. However, the defendant asserted that the general loan per household is not 7 million won in lump sum but 1.1 million won in total due to the difference in the amount of each household loan, and that the above 67 households loan amount (the collected amount) was not disclosed in detail. Thus, if there are circumstances, the court below should have stated that the loan content of the above 7 million won per household was stated in the confirmation document prepared by the defendant's own and that the above part of the loan amount claimed by the defendant is more reasonable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion somewhat on the ground that there is no evidence, is erroneous in the incomplete trial, and it has influenced the judgment.

3. Scope of reversal

The judgment of the court below is to reverse the whole judgment of the court below in order to re-determine the legitimate amount to be distributed to the plaintiff and the defendant in the auction procedure of this case by having the court below re-examine and determine the case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal related to general loans, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)