Whether the right to request the transferee of the right to collateral security to cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground that the transfer is null and void (negative)

The supplementary registration of the transfer of a right to collateral security is dependent on the existing principal registration, which forms the entire principal registration, and is incorporated into the principal registration. It is merely stated in the registry the succession of the right by means of the existing establishment registration of a right to collateral security, and it does not create a new right by the registration. Thus, a person who created a right to collateral security or a third party who acquired the ownership of a third party, who acquired the ownership thereof, may seek cancellation of the establishment registration of a right to collateral security against the transferee, who is the current title holder of the right to collateral security, on the ground that the transfer of the right to collateral from the transferee of the right to collateral security becomes null and void.

Article 156-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 357 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 200Da5640 delivered on April 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1188)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Rois, Attorneys White-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na26155 delivered on December 18, 2002

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

1. As to the second ground for appeal

The lower court, based on its findings of fact-finding, recognized the fact that each of the instant collateral security rights established by the Nonparty, the former owner of the Plaintiffs, for Daegu Bank, was a comprehensive collateral security right to secure all obligations owed by the obligor to the obligee, and rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking cancellation of the establishment of a new mortgage on the premise that the scope of each of the instant collateral security rights is limited to the loans owed by the obligor to the obligee, and on the premise that the scope of each of the instant collateral security

In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and the interpretation and judgment of the contract to establish a mortgage are all justified, and there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of a disposition document or

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The supplementary registration of the transfer of a right to collateral security is dependent on the existing principal registration, which forms the entire principal registration, and is not a new right by the registration, since the succession of the right by the registration of the establishment of the existing principal registration is stipulated in the register, it is not a new right by the registration. Thus, a person who created the right to collateral security or a third party who acquired the ownership by the said person may file a claim against the transferee, who is the current title holder of the right to collateral security, for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security, on the ground that the transfer of the right to collateral from the transferee of the right to collateral security becomes null and void. However, it is not possible for the transferee to file a claim

The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion against the defendant, on the ground that the secured claim of the right to collateral security was not finalized at the time of the additional registration of each of the instant mortgages in the future from the Daegu Bank, and thus, it was not effective prior to the transfer of the right to collateral security. The third purchaser cannot seek cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground that the third purchaser cannot seek cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground that the third purchaser is justified

The lower court’s determination on the fact that each of the instant collateral security obligations became final and conclusive prior to the transfer of the foregoing collateral security right is not likely to affect the conclusion of the judgment as a supplementary judgment, and thus, it is decided to omit the determination on the propriety thereof.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)