A. Whether the authenticity of a private document may be recognized in accordance with the whole purport of the pleading (affirmative)

B. Whether there is an error of law in the omission of reasons in a case where the basis for the establishment of the authenticity of documentary evidence is considered as material for fact-finding without brightness in the reasoning of the judgment (negative)

C. The validity of an agreement under which a creditor, a debtor, or a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property will include an obligation arising after a provisional registration in the scope of a secured obligation (=effective)

(d) Where the appraised value of at least two real estate whose provisional registration security rights have been established falls short of the amount of claims, whether the above notification becomes null and void solely on the ground that the person who has a provisional registration security rights gives notice of the exercise of the provisional registration security rights to the entire real estate and does not specify the appraised value

E. Whether binding force of the notification under Article 9 of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act extends to the amount of credit notified to the obligor, etc. (negative)

A. A private document may be admitted as evidence only when the authenticity is proven, but there is no special restriction on the method of proof, and even if the person who raised the document on the site does not prove the establishment thereof, the court may recognize it by taking into account the whole purport of the pleading, instead of other evidence.

B. The court's adoption of a documentary evidence is naturally based on the premise that the documentary evidence satisfies the formal evidence. Therefore, even if the other party claims it as a forged defense or denial of documentary evidence or as a site, it cannot be concluded that the grounds for the establishment of documentary evidence was based on the fact-finding without brightness in the reasoning of the judgment, and that there was an error in the misapprehension of the reasoning by taking the grounds for the establishment of documentary evidence as the material for fact-finding without brightness.

C. In concluding a contract to establish a provisional registration security right, the agreement that a creditor, an obligor, or a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another’s property will also include a debt that may arise after the provisional registration in the scope of a secured debt of the real estate subject to provisional registration cannot be deemed to go against any provision of Article 4(1) through (3) of the Provisional Registration Security Act, and the existence of a provisional registration security right is publicly announced by the provisional registration,

D. Article 3 of the same Act provides that, in cases where there are at least two secured real estate in order to protect the interests of junior creditors, the creditor shall divide his/her amount of credit into each real estate and indicate the distribution of the amount of credit to acquire ownership of each real estate as much as the amount of credit and expenses, and the appraised value of the secured real estate is nothing more than the basis for calculating the amount of liquidation, so that the notification of the execution of a provisional registration security right is not required to specify it when making a notification of the execution of a provisional registration security right, but it is not required to specify it by dividing it by each secured real estate. If the total appraised value of the secured real estate falls short of the amount of credit, the provisional registration security right holder notified of the execution of a provisional registration security right for the entire real estate,

E. Matters requiring binding force of the notification under Article 9 of the same Act are only the appraised value of the liquidation amount notified to the obligor, etc. when notifying the enforcement of the provisional registration security right, and it does not take binding force until the amount of the claim is not only the basis for calculating the liquidation amount.

(a) Article 328 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 193(2) of the same Act; Article 4 of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act; Article 3(2)(e) of the same Act; Article 9 of the same Act;

(a)B.D. (3) Supreme Court Decision 92Da12087 delivered on April 13, 1993 (dong) 92Da12094,12100 delivered on April 13, 1993 (dong). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu16 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987,1392) 88Nu3567 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong198,1046) 90Nu3904 delivered on September 25, 190 (Gong190,2199)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na2794 delivered on January 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant is examined (to the extent of supplement in case of the Defendant and other Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 3 by the defendant Kim Yong-chul and Jeju Jinology et al., Counsel for the appeal No. 1, and the ground of appeal No. 3 by the new appellant, such as the defendant Kim Yong-chul et al.

Upon examining the judgment of the court below along with the records of the court below, although the court below did not appear in the evidence list of evidence Nos. 2-3 and No. 38-9, which are not lawfully employed as evidence, and there was an error that the court below used No. 2-3 and No. 38-9 as evidence for fact-finding, it is possible to conduct fact-finding as stated in its judgment, even based on other evidence that the court below adopted as evidence for fact-finding, and the above error of the court below is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment (the evidence No. 25-1, No. 25-3,

In addition, even though the authenticity of a private document shall be proved, it shall be admitted as evidence, but there is no special restriction on the method of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu482 delivered on December 9, 1986). Even if a person who raised a documentary evidence as a site did not prove its establishment in particular, the court may recognize its establishment by free evaluation without any other evidence, taking into account the whole purport of the pleading (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da119 delivered on July 23, 1974; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1857 delivered on March 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3567 delivered on June 14, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu16 delivered on July 21, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3904 delivered on September 25, 190). Thus, it cannot be viewed that the other party's evidence or evidence cannot be proved as evidence without any reason to prove it.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 47 as its site; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6; Gap evidence Nos. 15, 17; Gap evidence Nos. 22, 25 through 27, 342; Gap evidence Nos. 24-1 through 6, 36-27, 29 through 57, 37, 39; Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7; Eul evidence Nos. 38-1 through 7; Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 47; Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 17; Eul evidence Nos. 40; Eul evidence No. 1 to 43; Gap evidence No. 1 to 12; Eul evidence No. 2; the court below found Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6; the defendant's evidence Nos. 1 to 7; and it found Gap evidence No. 2 as evidence of this case. 5.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the defendant Kim Yong-chul and Jeju Jinology, and ground of appeal No. 2 by the same legal representative

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense, which is a document that was agreed to invalidate Gap evidence No. 5, as legitimate and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as a violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, and the lack of reasons or the violation of reasons.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 1, 47, and 8 of the Defendant Kim Yong-chul, and the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 4, and 8 of the same legal representative, as the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 4, and 2 of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above real estate was owned by the defendant and the above non-party 2, who is his wife, and that the plaintiff 20,000 won was 5% per annum between April 15, 198 and the 19th day of the same month as stated in the judgment of the court below. The court below rejected the above non-party 2's provisional registration as 00,000 won and the above 00,000 won were 0,000 won per annum until September 16 of the same year. The court below rejected the above 00,000 won as stated in the judgment of the court below on April 19 of the same year and the above 200,000 won were 0,000 won were 10,000 won per annum 20,000 won were 0,000 won per annum 20,000 won were 0,000 won per annum 16,000.

In addition, in concluding a contract to establish a provisional registration security right, the agreement that a creditor, a debtor, or a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property shall also be included in the scope of a debt covered by the provisional registration in the scope of a debt covered by the provisional registration cannot be deemed to go against any provision of Article 4 (1) through (3) of the Provisional Registration Security Act. Since the existence of a provisional registration security right is publicly announced by the provisional registration, it is not likely that a junior right holder will be placed in an unforeseeable

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 5 by the defendant Yulchi, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

According to the records, the plaintiff's assertion that he did not notify the legitimate exercise of a security right under the latter part of Article 3 (2) of the same Act is not alleged in the fact-finding court, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and the above provision requires the creditor to divide his credit amount into one real estate into two or more real estate in order to protect the interests of the junior right holder, and indicate the distribution amount of the claim amount to acquire ownership of each real estate. The liquidation amount of the secured real estate is nothing more than the basis for calculating the appraised value. Thus, the liquidation amount of the secured real estate is not only the basis for calculating the appraised value, so it is not required to specify it by dividing it into each objective real estate, but it is not required to specify it when giving notice of the execution of a provisional registration security right, and in this case, the total appraised value of the real estate of this case does not reach the amount of claims. Thus, it cannot be said that the above notice is invalid until it becomes invalid.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise pointed out.

5. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 6, 2, 2, 1, and 1 of the defendant's ground of appeal against the defendant's obligation

According to the records, the plaintiff's assertion that the amount exceeding the amount of claims specified at the time of notification of the execution of the provisional registration security right of this case is not allowed pursuant to Article 9 of the same Act cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it is not asserted in the fact-finding court, and therefore, matters arising from binding force of the notification stipulated in the above Act are merely the appraised value of the liquidation amount notified to the debtor, etc. when notifying the execution of the provisional registration security right of this case, and the amount of claims required to be specified is nothing more than the basis for calculating the above liquidation amount, and thus, it shall not be binding until this binding period. Therefore, even if the plaintiff notified the defendant, etc. of the execution of the provisional registration security right of this case, it cannot be said that the above amount of claims is binding.

In the same purport, even if the court below determined that the claim secured by the real estate of this case is more than the amount specified in the above execution notice, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.

6. As to the grounds of appeal No. 5 by Defendant Kim Yong-chul and Jeju Jinology

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion that the amount exceeding 200,000,000 won is against the principle of trust and good faith as the claim amount against the above non-party 2, which is secured by the real estate of this case, is against the defendant's claim that the provisional registration of this case is against the principle of trust and good faith, and thereafter the above non-party 2 guarantees not only the claim amount as indicated in the judgment but also all the obligations to be borrowed from the plaintiff. In light of the records, the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)