Interpretation of the repayment of bonds pursuant to Article 13 of the Emergency Order Concerning Economic Stabilization and Growth

Even if a bondholder who has leased money has made a promise for payment in kind on real estate owned by the debtor and has passed through a provisional registration for claiming ownership transfer registration, he/she shall not file a claim for ownership transfer registration of the real estate registered provisionally by means of payment for bonds.

Article 13 of Emergency Order Concerning Economic Stabilization and Growth

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Attorneys Kim Jong-su, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 71Na950 delivered on December 2, 1972

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiffs lent 2 million won to the defendant on August 8, 1969, 4% interest rate per month, 5% interest rate, and 11 January 1970, which had been due date, and they did not pay the principal or interest on this real estate at the same time as the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security was passed, and if they did not pay the principal or interest on this real estate at the agreed date, they would lose the benefit of time without delay, and they would make a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership, and thereafter the defendant did not pay the principal and interest under the above agreement. Since the defendant was a company operating another business upon business inspection, the defendant did not report the bonds on this case as to this case under the order of the President promulgated as of August 3, 1972, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' right to collateral security and its security interest under the above Article 18 of the Emergency Order, and it can be found that the plaintiffs and the creditors of this case were legitimate in accordance with the above Presidential bond order.

However, according to Article 13 of the above Emergency Order, unless a bondholder exercises his right in accordance with the above Emergency Order, the return of the substitute and the registration of transfer of ownership based on provisional registration shall not be made for the repayment of the bond. Thus, if the defendant who is the debtor fails to pay the principal or interest related to the loan in this case on the agreed date, he shall lose the benefit of time immediately, and if he concludes a contract to provide this real estate as payment in kind, he shall make a provisional registration to preserve the plaintiffs' right to claim ownership transfer registration, and if it is obvious that the plaintiffs file a claim for the execution of the procedure to transfer ownership transfer registration of this case, even if the contract has the effect of the above contract for transfer in this case, he cannot file a claim for transfer registration of ownership of this case by the method of repayment of the bond in this case, notwithstanding the fact that the court below made the above decision, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the repayment of the bond in accordance with the Presidential order promulgated as of August 3, 1972.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Han Young-gu (Presiding Judge)