[1] Whether the exercise of security right can be permitted under the Provisional Registration Security Act, etc. (negative)

[2] Whether a registration based on a provisional registration made in violation of Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act can be a valid registration that conforms to a substantive legal relationship after the fact (affirmative)

[3] The validity of liquidation procedures conducted without notifying subordinate right holders under Article 6 (1) of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act

[1] Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Act provide for the principle of settlement of accounts devolving upon a private execution method of a provisional registration security right, while Articles 12 and 13 provide separate settlement of accounts, such as a claim for auction and a right to preferential reimbursement, by means of the public execution method. Article 4 of the above Act provides for the creditor's obligation to pay liquidation money, the period of liquidation, the request for principal registration, the obligation to pay liquidation money, the ownership transfer registration of real estate and the simultaneous performance relation of an obligation to deliver debts, etc., in sequence. Article 4 of the above Act provides that special agreement contrary to paragraphs (1) through (3) of the above Article provides that any disadvantage to the debtor, etc. shall not be effective (excluding special agreement made after the expiration of the period of liquidation, which does not infringe a third party's right). Furthermore, Article 11 of the Provisional Registration Security Act provides that the debtor, etc. shall pay the debt amount to the creditor until the debtor, etc. has been paid the obligation to pay the liquidation money, and that a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made for the security right can not be granted.

[2] In light of the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Act, if the principal registration based on the provisional registration for security has been made in violation of each provision, the principal registration shall be null and void. Even if such principal registration was made by a special agreement between the person holding the provisional registration and the debtor, if such special agreement is null and void because it is unfavorable to the debtor, the principal registration is still null and void, and it is not valid within the purpose of the security as a security. However, if the person holding the provisional registration notifies the debtor of the appraised value of the liquidation amount in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Security Act, and there is no payment or liquidation amount for the debtor after the debtor is notified of the appraised value of the liquidation amount in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Security Act, the registration which

[3] A creditor who is a provisional registration security right does not notify a junior creditor of the fact that he notified liquidation to an obligor under Article 6 (1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act before the period of liquidation expires or when he pays liquidation money to an obligor, which cannot be set up against a junior creditor. However, since the effect of such restriction on repayment is a relative that applies only to a junior creditor, the junior creditor is deemed to have not yet extinguished a claim for liquidation money and can directly exercise his right to a creditor, and if the junior creditor claims to pay liquidation money to a creditor, the creditor cannot be exempted from double payment of liquidation money, and the junior creditor does not grant the obligor the right to refuse to exercise the security right on the sole ground that the junior creditor exists.

[1] Articles 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13 of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act / [2] Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act / [3] Articles 6 (1) and 7 (2) of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da81856 Decided April 23, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1218)/ [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da20132 Decided January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 790), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9127 Decided April 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1605)/ [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Da1776 Decided July 12, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 248)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Dong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Attorney Cho Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na37816 delivered on June 14, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the provisional registration of this case and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage cannot be deemed to have been made on the forged documents by the deceased non-party 1. There is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the

The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The judgment of the court below

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 담보목적으로 경료된 소외 1 명의의 가등기에 기하여 이루어진 이 사건 본등기는 가등기담보등에관한법률(이하 '가등기담보법'이라 한다) 소정의 청산절차를 거치지 아니하고 이루어진 것이므로 무효의 등기라는 원고의 주장에 대하여 이 사건 가등기는 소외 1의 원고에 대한 대여금채권을 담보하기 위하여 경료된 것으로서 위 가등기 당시 담보부동산의 시가가 대여 원리금을 초과하였으므로 가등기담보법 소정의 가등기라고 할 것이고, 이런 경우에는 채권자가 담보계약에 의한 가등기담보권을 실행하여 그 담보목적 부동산의 소유권을 취득하기 위하여는 채권의 변제기 후에 가등기담보법 제3조 , 제4조 소정의 청산금의 평가액을 통지하고 그 통지가 채무자 등에게 도달한 날로부터 2개월간의 청산기간이 경과하여야 하며, 채권자의 청산금의 지급의무와 담보 부동산의 소유권이전등기의무는 동시이행의 관계에 있는 등 가등기담보법 제3조 , 제4조 소정의 절차에 따라야 하고, 이에 반하는 특약으로서 채무자 등에게 불리한 것은 그 효력이 없다고 전제한 후( 가등기담보법 제4조 제4항 ), ① 소외 1과 원고는, 원고가 소외 1에 대한 채무를 변제하지 아니하던 중 1997. 1. 28. 및 1997. 1. 31. 이 사건 가등기에 기한 피담보채무를 정산하기로 하여 ㉮ 원고의 소외 1에 대한 채무는, 서울지방법원 남부지원 92가합18260호 판결에 의하여 확정된 원금 455,000,000원과 이에 대한 1993. 1. 31.부터 1997. 1. 31.까지 연 25%의 비율에 의한 지연손해금 등 합계 금 910,000,000원에서 소외 1이 1995. 4.부터 1996. 12.까지 변제받은 금 92,800,000원을 공제한 나머지 금 817,200,000원으로 하고, ㉯ 담보목적물인 이 사건 토지의 평가액은 ○○공사의 1997. 1. 8.경 공매처분감정가격인 956,550,000원으로 하고, 소외 1은 이 사건 토지의 평가액에서 원고의 위 확정 채무액 817,200,000원을 공제한 금액(139,350,000원)보다 더 많은 금 230,000,000원을 원고에게 정산금으로 지급하되, 원고의 체납재산세 및 ○○공사의 수수료 등을 소외 1이 추가로 대신 지급하는 조건으로 이 사건 가등기에 기한 본등기절차를 경료하기로 하는 내용의 합의(이하 '이 사건 정산합의'라 한다)를 한 사실, ② 이에 따라 소외 1은 1997. 2. 6. 정산금 중 130,000,000원을 원고의 대리인 소외 2에게 지급하고, 같은 날 위 가등기에 기하여 이 사건 본등기절차를 경료하였고, 1997. 3. 31. 원고가 체납한 재산세 금 15,798,300원, ○○공사에 대한 공매수수료 금 1,132,280원을 각 대위지급한 사실, ③ 소외 1은 원고에 대한 정산금 중 금 100,000,000원을 지급하지 못하고 있던 중 소외 3으로부터, 1999. 6. 18. 위 소외 3이 원고에 대하여 가지고 있는 채권 중 200,000,000원을 양도받았고, 소외 3의 채권양도 통지가 그 무렵 원고에게 도달한 사실, ④ 소외 1의 소송수계인들인 피고들은 원고를 상대로 서울지방법원 2000가합46783호 양수금청구 소송을 제기하면서, 그 소장에서 위 소외 3으로부터 양도받은 채권 200,000,000원을 자동채권으로 하여 원고에 대하여 부담하고 있는 정산금 100,000,000원의 채무와 대등액에서 상계한다는 뜻을 표시하였는바, 위 소장 부본이 2000. 8. 30. 원고에게 도달하여 같은 날 피고들의 양수금 채권과 원고의 정산금 채권은 그 대등액에서 소멸한 사실을 인정한 다음, 소외 1과 원고의 이 사건 정산 합의가 가등기담보법이 규정하고 있는 2개월의 청산기간을 부여하지 아니하고, 본등기와 청산금 일부가 동시이행으로 이루어지지 않는 등 가등기담보법 소정의 청산절차를 그대로 따르고 있지 않은 점은 있으나, 이 사건 정산합의는 변제기 후에 이루어졌고, 담보부동산의 평가액은 객관적인 감정가격을 기초로 한 ○○공사의 공매처분 감정가격으로, 피담보채권액은 이미 확정된 위 92가합18260호 판결에 기하여 산정한 금액으로 각 계산하여 청산한 점, 그 결과 담보부동산의 평가액이 139,350,000원 정도 많았으나, 소외 1은 그 보다 많은 금 230,000,000원을 정산금으로 지급하는 동시에 원고의 체납재산세 및 공매수수료 등을 추가지급하는 조건으로 이 사건 본등기를 경료하기로 한 점, 실제로 소외 1은 1997. 2. 6. 정산금 중 130,000,000원을 원고의 대리인 소외 2에게 지급하고, 같은 날 위 가등기에 기하여 이 사건 본등기절차를 경료하였으며, 1997. 3. 31. 원고가 체납한 재산세 금 15,798,300원, ○○공사에 대한 공매수수료 금 1,132,280원을 각 변제한 점, 소외 1의 원고에 대한 나머지 정산금 100,000,000원은 그 후 위 양수채권과 상계·소멸하여 정산이 완료된 점 등 이 사건 변론과정에 나타난 제반 사정을 종합하여 고찰하면, 원고와 소외 1 사이의 이 사건 정산합의는 담보부동산의 평가액에서 피담보채권액을 초과하는 금액을 반환하는 방법으로 청산절차가 이루어진 것으로서, 적법한 담보권실행으로 유효하다고 인정되고, 나아가 채무자인 원고에게 불리한 약정이라고 볼 수도 없다는 이유로 원고의 청구를 배척하였다.

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

In addition, Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Act provide for the principle of settlement of accounts to revert to a private execution method of a provisional registration under Articles 12 and 13 as well as separate settlement of accounts, such as a claim for auction and a right to preferential reimbursement, by means of public execution method. Article 4 of the above Act provides, in sequence, the obligation to pay liquidation money to a creditor, the expiration of liquidation period and the principal registration, the obligation to pay liquidation money and the simultaneous performance relation of ownership transfer and delivery obligations, etc., and a special agreement contrary to the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of the above Article 4 provides that if an obligor is in contravention of the provisions of paragraphs (4) through (3), and it is not effective (excluding a special agreement made after the expiration of the liquidation period and which does not prejudice any third party's rights). Further, Article 11 of the above Act provides that if the obligor pays the obligation to pay liquidation money to a creditor until he has received the obligation to pay the liquidation money, it is still valid for the obligor to pay the liquidation money under the provisional registration Act within 20.

Meanwhile, a creditor who is a provisional registration security right does not notify a junior creditor of the fact that he notified liquidation to an obligor under Article 6 (1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act before the period of liquidation expires or when he pays liquidation money to an obligor, which cannot be set up against a junior creditor. However, since the effect of the restriction on repayment is a relative that applies only to a junior creditor, the junior creditor is deemed to have not yet extinguished a claim for liquidation money and can directly exercise his right to a creditor, and if a junior creditor claims to pay liquidation money to a creditor, the junior creditor shall not be exempted from double payment of liquidation money, and the fact that the junior creditor has a junior creditor does not grant the obligor the right to refuse to exercise the security right (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da1776 delivered on July 12, 196).

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the settlement agreement of this case is a special agreement that violates Article 4 (2) and (3) of the Provisional Registration Security Act and is disadvantageous to the debtor, etc., and thus, is null and void pursuant to Article 4 (4) of the same Act, since it is a special agreement that violates Article 4 (2) and (3) of the Provisional Registration Security Act and does not recognize the period of liquidation or the right to defense of simultaneous performance prior to the payment of liquidation money in the private execution of the provisional registration security right. Therefore, the principal registration of this case, which was made

However, according to the facts duly admitted by the court below, in entering into the settlement agreement of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the value of the land of this case is the appraisal price of ○○○ Construction around January 8, 1997, and the amount of the claim is calculated as the amount finalized in the judgment of 92Ga18260 between the non-party 1 and the plaintiff, and the Seoul District Court 92Ga18260, respectively. The difference is calculated as the total sum of KRW 90,650,000,000 that the non-party 1 should pay to the plaintiff additionally. The non-party 1 expressed his intention to exercise the security right to the plaintiff. The non-party 1 paid KRW 130,000,000 to the plaintiff when the provisional registration of this case was made on the basis of the provisional registration of this case before 2 months from the date of the settlement agreement of this case. The non-party 1 paid KRW 30,000,000 among the above liquidation amount to the plaintiff.

Therefore, even if the settlement agreement between the non-party 1 and the plaintiff is null and void pursuant to Article 4 (4) of the Provisional Registration Security Act, as long as the non-party 1 expressed to the plaintiff the intent to enforce the security interest in the provisional registration of this case with the appraised amount of KRW 230,000,000, it shall be deemed to be effective as a notification to exercise the security interest. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the liquidation period for two months from the date of notification has expired, and the above amount of KRW 230,000 has been paid, and as the court below duly admitted, it can be deemed that the above amount of KRW 230,00,000 has been a justifiable liquidation amount. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the registration based on the provisional registration of this case has been effective registration in accordance with the substantive legal relations when the plaintiff received the entire liquidation amount, even if a junior right holder who was not notified of the exercise of the security interest had no other circumstance.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the settlement agreement of this case goes against the provisions of Article 4 (1) through (3) of the Provisional Registration Security Act and is disadvantageous to the debtor, etc., shall be deemed to be erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the liquidation procedures under the Provisional Registration Security Act. However, as long as the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case is deemed to be effective registration in accordance with the substantive legal relations, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim shall be justified, and there

3. 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 Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)