In the event that other real estate than the sale real estate is the object of joint collateral, the relationship between the joint collateral separation procedure obligation and the ownership transfer registration obligation.

In addition to the sale real estate, in the event that the establishment of a mortgage is registered as a joint collateral, and the buyer performs and takes over the above mortgage debt, the seller is natural to request the buyer to take procedures for separation of joint collateral at least prior to the registration of transfer of ownership.

Article 368 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1927 delivered on September 5, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1927 delivered on September 5, 1969

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined comprehensively.

The facts established by the court below are as follows: (a) from April 26, 1967 to the defendant, the plaintiff purchased the building site owned by him in cash or by deposit of 3.5 million won; and (b) 2.3.5 million won out of the price was paid in cash on several occasions; (c) at the time of the sales contract, the plaintiff agreed to acquire and pay on behalf of the plaintiff 1.3 million won out of the debts borrowed from another real estate held by the defendant as joint collateral to the bank; and (d) at the sales contract, the contract was concluded to transfer the ownership of the building site to the plaintiff when the defendant was deducted by 1.3 million won from the price; and (e) until the agreement was completed for the above 1.3 million won, the agreement was made by the defendant to transfer the ownership of the building site to the plaintiff; and (e) until the registration was made, the agreement was made

In addition, the defendant agreed to separate the above 1.3 million won or more from the joint collateral so that it does not reach the building site. The main issue in the defendant's reply is that the main issue of the dispute over this case among the main points of the defendant's reply is the joint collateral of 2.2 million won or more, which was jointly secured by 3.6 million won or more in total, of the maximum amount of the common collateral set forth in 1.2 No. 3. 1.2 with the creditor's common collateral, to separate the above 1.3 million won or more from the joint collateral to pay the debt within the limit of 1.3 million won. Thus, the plaintiff did not have an obligation to separate the above joint collateral transfer registration to separate the above joint collateral obligation from the above 2 lots of real estate, so long as the plaintiff did not have an obligation to separate the above joint collateral ownership registration procedure.

In light of the above facts, where only the seller bears the obligation of mortgage as the object of sale and purchase registration, and the seller agrees to deduct the amount of the obligation of mortgage from the proceeds of sale and purchase (acquisition) by way of approval, even if the seller did not perform the obligation of mortgage after the transfer registration of ownership, there may be room for a seller to file for registration of transfer of ownership only because other real estate owned by the seller is fulfilled by the buyer even if the mortgage is not executed because the seller did not perform the obligation of mortgage after the transfer registration of ownership. However, according to the records of the court below's reasoning that the sale and purchase of other real estate owned by the seller, other than the sale and purchase real estate, is not the object of mortgage and other real estate owned by the seller is also the object of mortgage, and thus, there is a risk of loss of the buyer's right by the execution of mortgage. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the seller's obligation of joint collateral registration without taking account of the circumstances that the seller did not request the seller to separate the so-called joint collateral ownership registration procedure.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon