The case holding that there was an error in interpreting the intention of the party in violation of the rules of evidence in recognizing the implied waiver of the right to collateral security.

The case holding that there was an error in interpreting the intention of the party in violation of the rules of evidence in recognizing the implied waiver of the right to collateral security.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Jeon Jae-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Kim Jin Kim

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na1126 delivered on April 13, 1989

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the court below did not find out any errors in violation of the rules of evidence such as erroneous determination of the value of evidence, etc., even if the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was aware of the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case by Nonparty 1 at the latest around June 1986, and it did not find out any errors in violation of the rules of evidence such as erroneous determination of the value of evidence. Thus

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 was cancelled the registration of the establishment of the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's title trust on the above 7th anniversary of the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage, and that the non-party 1 was cancelled by waiver of the above registration of the establishment of the right to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's right to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's cancellation of the registration of the above 7th anniversary of the above 7th anniversary of the fact that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were not known to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's cancellation of the registration of the right to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's cancellation of the registration of the right to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's cancellation of the registration of the above real estate on the above 7th real estate.

However, the contents of the original call call at the time of the original call are related to the payment of the remaining purchase and sale amount of the real estate of this case at the time of the original call and the measures taken at the time of the cancellation thereof. According to the statement of No. 1-2 (Protocol of Trial) and the witness Nonparty 1 and the witness of the lower court employed by the lower court, the Plaintiff decided that Nonparty 1 (Defendant of the first instance court) at the time of the above filing telephone was KRW 200,000,000 (the original call was KRW 20,000,000) which was secured by the right to collateral which was cancelled at the time of the original call at the time of the above filing of the lawsuit, but this seems to be a clerical error, and it is difficult to readily conclude that Nonparty 1 did not explicitly mention the fact that the mortgage was cancelled on October 25, 1986.

In addition, as seen above, the court below confirmed the fact that real estate was provided as collateral to the non-party 1 for the loan of 80,000,000 won to the non-party 1 in the name of the plaintiff, and decided that the plaintiff would waive the right to collateral on the real estate of this case in order for the non-party 1 to use the amount of 80,000 won from the above credit cooperative; however, although the court below decided that the non-party 1 would waive the right to collateral on the real estate of this case, the plaintiff offered the non-party 1 to the non-party 6 Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 1-12 (written evidence), and evidence 12 (written evidence)-2 (written evidence), and the testimony of the non-party 1 as to the non-party 2's real estate which was not rejected by the court below, the plaintiff offered the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 as the non-party 2's joint collateral loan of 279-7,10 and 275.7.

In addition, even after examining the record, the Plaintiff cannot find out data sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff renounced the right to collateral security on the instant real estate.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the court below's decision that the plaintiff renounced the right to collateral security on the real estate of this case to the defendant Kim Pung or the non-party 1 was erroneous in interpreting the intention of the party in violation of the rules of evidence. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff (Article 2 of the judgment of the court below) shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)