The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Since the right to collateral security is established for claims, in principle, the obligee and the mortgagee should be the same person. However, in the event that the right to collateral security is established with the third party as the holder of the right to collateral security, there is an agreement between the obligee, the obligor, and the third party on this point, and there is a special circumstance to deem that the claim was actually reverted to the third party by means of assignment of claims, contract, etc. for the third party, etc., or in light of transaction circumstances, the third party is not limited to the piece at which the registration of creation of the right to collateral security was made by the third party, but the third party is able to receive the effective repayment of the claim from the obligor, and the relationship between the obligee and the third party, who is the holder of the right to collateral security, can be seen as valid if it can be seen that

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da33583, Sept. 26, 1995). Moreover, to clarify what the legal meaning of a series of acts by a party is belongs to the area of legal judgment distinct from fact-finding as an interpretation of declaration of intent.

(2) On March 15, 2001, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and held that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant for securing KRW 30 million and KRW 120 million under the name of the defendant, even if the registration of the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant was completed to secure KRW 30 million and KRW 120 million, as alleged by the defendant, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant cannot be deemed to have been substantially reverted to the defendant, on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed on the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant, and that each of the above claims in the name of the defendant, D, C, and D and E, were transferred to the defendant.