[1] The nature of the right to lease on a deposit basis and whether the right to lease on a deposit basis can be transferred separately from the right to lease on a deposit basis (affirmative with qualification), and whether the right to lease on a deposit basis can be extinguished

[2] Where only a claim for the return of lease on a deposit basis is separated and transferred without complying with a disposition of lease on a deposit basis under an agreement between the parties, the effect of additional registration of provisional seizure made as to the lease on a deposit basis

[3] In a case where a person having chonsegwon has the obligation to cancel the registration of chonsegwon against the settlor of chonsegwon, whether the person having chonsegwon has the obligation to cooperate in the procedure of registration of cancellation of chonsegwon (affirmative)

[1] Since the right of lease on a deposit basis has a nature of security, it is not allowed to transfer the right of lease on a deposit basis separately from the right of lease on a deposit basis that is secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis. However, in light of the purpose of the right of lease on a deposit basis, the right of lease on a deposit basis is not always disposed of at all times when the right of security is disposed of, but the right of security is held as security, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the disposal of the right of security is also included in the disposal of the right of security. Thus, in special circumstances where the disposal of the right of security is not complied with despite the disposal of the right of security, the transferee

[2] Where the contract is agreed between the parties to the contract of lease on a deposit basis, the registration of lease on a deposit basis shall be deemed to have the effect of securing the claim for the return of lease on a deposit basis. However, where only the claim for the return of lease on a deposit basis is separated and transferred without complying with the disposition of lease on a deposit basis pursuant to the agreement between the parties thereafter, the transferee shall be deemed to have taken over the claim for the return of lease on a deposit basis. As long as the lease on a deposit basis has been extinguished as a real right

[3] If a person having chonsegwon bears the obligation to cancel the registration of chonsegwon against the settlor of chonsegwon, the person having chonsegwon who has attached it provisionally and completed an additional registration is a third party having an interest in the registration and has the obligation under the substantive law to give consent necessary for the procedure for cancellation registration of the settlor of chonsegwon.

[1] Articles 303(1) and 449 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 303(1) and 449 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 303(1) and 449 of the Civil Act; Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da29790 delivered on November 25, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 3) Supreme Court Decision 98Da20981 delivered on September 4, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2396)/ [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Da4103 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 27)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Ma-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang Comprehensive Finance Co., Ltd. and 5 others (Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na18412 delivered on July 4, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period are examined as well.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the disposal of the secured claim is naturally included in the disposal of the secured claim, unless there is a special circumstance that does not comply with the disposal of the secured claim despite the disposal of the secured claim. Thus, the transferee of the secured claim should take over the secured claim without the secured right and terminate the secured right which does not comply with the disposal of the secured claim (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da29790 delivered on November 25, 1997).

The court below determined that, between November 1, 1993 and April 14, 1994, the plaintiffs entered into a contract to establish chonsegwon with the codefendant Cement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Cloat Cloat Cloat Cloat Cloat Cloat") of which total amount of deposit money was 3,543,260,400 won as to the part of the building of this case, and completed each registration of chonsegwon between December 28, 1993 and June 22, 1994. The plaintiffs agreed to the contract to establish chonsegwon with the defendant's right to lease on February 1, 1995 to cancel the above right to lease on a deposit basis as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that, on March 4, 1995, the plaintiffs transferred the right to lease on a deposit basis to the plaintiff 3,543,136,600 won as well as the plaintiff's right to lease on a deposit basis to the plaintiff 197.

The registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis shall be effective in the event that the contract is concluded between the parties to the contract of lease on a deposit basis as in this case. However, if only the claim for the return of the right to lease on a deposit basis is separated and transferred without complying with the disposition of the right to lease on a deposit basis pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the transferee shall take over the right to the return of the right to lease on a deposit basis. If the right to lease on a deposit basis is extinguished as a real right securing the claim for the return of the right to lease on a deposit basis, no additional registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis is effective. Therefore, the decision of the court below on this point is just, and there is no error of law such as the conclusion of the agreement on the right to lease on a deposit basis and the

In addition, as determined by the court below, if the Seosan Cement, which is the person having chonsegwon, bears the duty of cancelling the registration of chonsegwon against the plaintiffs, it shall be deemed that the defendants, as the third party having interests in the registration, have the duty of substantive law to give consent necessary for the procedure for cancelling the registration of the plaintiffs as the person having chonsegwon, who is the person having chonsegwon, as well as the others having interests in the registration. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just,

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)