B. Whether the subject of mortgage and the secured debt can be different

(b)a mortgage secured by a claim and its subject may not be different in accordance with the incidental nature of the security right.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined as follows: each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1) attached to the plaintiff 1 and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (2) attached to the plaintiff 2, as 6068, receipt of assistance from the Jeonju District Court prior to Apr. 18, 1973, 150 Ma150 Ma (1,500 Ma), the bond price of 1,500, and the debtor 2 and the defendant 1, as 50 Mama2, and decided as follows: (a) the fact that the mortgage establishment registration was completed on behalf of the plaintiff 1, 1972, 142 (1 omitted) and the non-party 1 (2 omitted); (b) that the non-party 2 and the legal representative of the defendant 1 were not 500 Mama2,000,0000 for the above loan and the above 1,000 Ma50,000.

However, if the contents of a disposal document acknowledged as genuine are presumed to be consistent with the truth, it must be explained with reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da2122, Jan. 31, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 71Da1976, Oct. 25, 197; Supreme Court Decision 80Da442, Jun. 9, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 80Da442, Jun. 9, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 62Da918, Mar. 14, 1963; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2857, Oct. 25, 2005). Further, the court below rejected the above facts that the registration of establishment of a collateral security right was made under the name of the defendant, and there was no conflict between the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2, who was an obligee of the above non-party 1, as well as the plaintiff 2, who was an obligee of the above documents.

With respect to the second ground:

The court below held that the above non-party 2's legal representative of the plaintiff 2 and the above non-party 1 was a non-party 2's act of non-party 1 and the non-party 2's act of this case on January 13, 1978 and the non-party 1's action of claiming the return of the above loan for consumption and the quasi-loan for consumption (the Jeonju District Court 78Gahap14) and the judgment in favor of the above non-party 3 was declared on February 21, 1972, but the above non-party 2 appealed (the Gwangju High Court 79Na163) as a result of the appeal (the above non-party 2's appeal was a non-party 1 and the above non-party 1's legal representative of the plaintiff 2 and the above non-party 1 were a non-party 2's act of this case's non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's legal representative's non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's legal representative's legal representative.

However, the court below did not indirectly declare the defendant's defense that there was ratification of the above non-party 2's act of acting as the non-party 2's act of acting as the non-party 2 under the above findings of fact in the reasoning of the judgment, and even in this case, it did not indirectly declare that the defendant did not act as the non-party 2 as the contents of the judgment in the above final judgment, but it differs from the case of this case where the defendant seeks to cancel the registration of the establishment of the above non-party 2's act of acting as the non-party 2's act of acting as the non-party 2 and the case where the above judgment became final and conclusive. Therefore, the court below should have

With respect to the third point:

The court below acknowledged that the defendant's non-party 2 deposited 3,542,190 won in the name of the plaintiff 2 and the above non-party 1 on June 7, 1978 with respect to the defendant's non-party 2's defense of ratification of the above non-party representative, but it is against the res judicata of the above non-party's final judgment on the grounds prior to the conclusion of arguments in the above final judgment.

However, the above final judgment is related to the lawsuit between the non-party 3 and the plaintiffs, and it is not effective among the plaintiff and the defendant of this case, and even if the defendant's legal representative of the non-party 3 is the same (see Supreme Court Decision 4290Sang511 delivered on October 21, 1957). This part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the personal scope of res judicata, and it is also justified.

Ultimately, the illegality of the judgment of the court below, which was pointed out above, constitutes the ground for reversal as stipulated in Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate division of the Jeonju District Court which is the court below to

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)