The plaintiff 2's claim of this case is claiming the return of the down payment that had already been paid to the same defendant by asserting that the sales contract with the defendant 2 was terminated, and the plaintiff 1's claim of this case by the plaintiff 2 (the counter defendant, hereinafter "the plaintiff") is seeking the execution of the provisional registration or the cancellation registration procedure of the provisional registration or the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage on each real estate stated in the separate sheet of the judgment of the court below, which was made under the name of the defendant 1 or the defendant 3 for the performance of the obligation to pay the remainder of payment by the plaintiff 2 under the above sales contract. Each of the above lawsuits is not an essential co-litigation, but an ordinary co-litigation, and therefore whether the period

However, according to the records, even if the plaintiff 2 served the original copy of the judgment of August 4, 2008, the plaintiff 2 submitted the petition of appeal to the court below on the 20th day of the same month when two weeks of the lawful period of appeal elapsed. Thus, the appeal is unlawful.

2. Judgment on Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

In case where a mortgage is created by providing real estate owned by an obligor as collateral for the purpose of securing a claim, in principle, the creditor and the debtor may not differ from the subject of the mortgage in light of the appendant legal principle of the security right. However, there was an agreement between the creditor, the debtor and the third party on the registration of the mortgage in the name of a third party, which is not the creditor, and further, there was an agreement between the creditor, the debtor and the third party on the registration of the mortgage in the name of the third party, which may be deemed to have been substantially attributed to the claim, or in light of the transaction circumstances, the third party may be able to receive the claim effective from the debtor, and the debtor may also be deemed to have an indivisible relationship between the creditor and the third party among the third parties who are the creditor or the nominal owner of the mortgage (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da3583, Sept. 26, 195; Supreme Court Decision 9Da4894, Mar. 15, 2001).

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the provisional registration of this case in Defendant 1’s future, Defendant 2’s children (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) as to the real estate listed in attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below, in order to pay the remaining purchase price, that Plaintiff 2 decided to purchase KRW 110 million from Defendant 2, and paid the down payment KRW 20 million to Defendant 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

The judgment of the court below is just on the premise of the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to provisional registration of collateral or collateral security, omission of judgment, incomplete hearing, or violation of the duty of explanation. The assertion that provisional registration of this case and collateral security of this case violate the legal principles as to the appendant nature of collateral security right is first raised in the final appeal, and it does not constitute a legitimate

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intention of the party expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. shall be comprehensively considered and reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da13640, Jul.

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the remaining amount of the sales contract of this case, which is paid in kind upon the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case, is equivalent to the amount obtained by subtracting the secured amount of the secured amount of the real estate, from the market price of the real estate subject to the provisional registration of this case, and there was no evidence to deem that the remaining amount exceeds the outstanding amount of the sales contract of this case, in light of the following: (a) although the remainder amount of the sales contract of this case was stated as the price of the pre-sale contract of this case as the price for return of substitute goods; (b)

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of a disposition document or return of substitute goods, or in violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff 2’s appeal is dismissed, and Plaintiff 1’s appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)