[1] In a case where an agreement was made to return the property when the principal and interest of a debt is repaid within a certain period as another property right is transferred by the method of arranging the existing debt, the interpretation of the agreement

[2] In a weak meaning of transfer for security, in a case where the market price of the object at the time of the agreement falls short of the principal and interest of bonds, whether the settlement procedure is required (affirmative)

[3] Whether title trust of real estate to a minor person by a person with parental authority, who is a legal representative, constitutes an act of conflict in interest (negative)

[1] In the event that an agreement was reached to redeem the principal and interest of an obligation within a certain period of time as the transfer of other property rights by way of arranging existing debts, barring any other special circumstance, it shall be interpreted that an agreement was reached between the parties to transfer the property for the purpose of collateral and to pay the principal and interest through the process of settlement through the exercise of security rights unless the repayment is made within the due date.

[2] If an agreement of transfer for security was concluded within a weak meaning that the procedure for settling the real estate was planned, the obligee shall undergo settlement procedures to exercise the security right at the time of the repayment of the obligation, and the obligor may seek a cancellation of the transfer of ownership in the name of the obligee on the real estate before the obligee performs the procedure for settling accounts by exercising the security right and completing the procedure for settling accounts. This is also true when the market price of the real estate concerned at the time of the agreement of transfer for

[3] Since the act of title trust of real estate by a person with parental authority who is a legal representative to a minor person cannot be deemed as falling under the act of title trust between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, it shall not be deemed as null and void on the ground that

[1] Articles 105, 372, 607, and 608 of the Civil Act; Articles 1 and 2 of the Provisional Registration Security Act / [2] Articles 372, 607, and 608 of the Civil Act; Articles 1 and 2 of the Provisional Registration Security Act / [3] Articles 103 [title trust] and 921 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da11223 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 667), Supreme Court Decision 95Da34781 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 169), Supreme Court Decision 94Da3565, 3572 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 178), Supreme Court Decision 84Da2472, 2473 delivered on October 22, 198 (Gong1985, 1543) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 81Da649 delivered on October 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 1486)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Park Ho-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Na629 delivered on December 6, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined together.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If an agreement was reached to redeem the principal and interest of a debt within a certain period while transferring other property rights by way of arranging existing debts, barring any other special circumstances, the agreement between the parties to transfer the property for the purpose of collateral and to pay the principal and interest through the process of settlement by exercising the security right if the repayment is not made within the due date (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da11223, Dec. 24, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party, a joint defendant of the court of first instance, established a mortgage equivalent to 37,500,000 won with respect to the real estate of this case to the non-party Seoul Trust Bank and did not repay the money after borrowing the money, and thus, the above non-party, among the above banks' voluntary auction procedures, borrowed 45,000,000 won from the defendant on July 23, 1986 and cancelled the registration of establishment of the above bank's principal and interest and the above 5,00,000 won with respect to the above real estate as the above 0th of July 23, 1986 and the above 0th of 0th of July 20, the court below held that the above non-party's additional contract was null and void with the above 90th of 0th of July 20, 196, and that the above 190th of July 30, 1997.

According to the records, the court below's decision that the above non-party and the defendant agreed to settle the real estate of this case as a weak meaning of the contract was made is justified in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to repurchase and transfer of security, such as theory of lawsuit.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if an agreement of transfer for security was made within the meaning that the above non-party and the defendant planned the settlement procedure for the real estate of this case, the defendant must undergo settlement procedures to exercise the security right at the time of payment of the above debt, and the above non-party can seek cancellation of the registration of transfer for ownership of this case's real estate under the name of the defendant before the defendant fulfilled the security right and completed the settlement procedure, and the same applies to the case where the market price of this case's real estate at the time of the above agreement of transfer for security does not exceed the principal and interest of the claim. On the contrary, as long as the market price of this case's real estate at the time of the above agreement of transfer for security does not exceed the above principal and interest of the claim, it

2. On the second ground for appeal

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 2 is that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below on the family, but as seen above, the judgment of the court below that an agreement for security by means of transfer was concluded between the above Nonparty and the defendant regarding the real estate in this case, and as long as there is justifiable ground of appeal, even if it was erroneous in the court below's assumptive and additional judgment, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment,

3. On the third ground for appeal

Since the act of title trust of real estate held by a person with parental authority who is a legal representative to a minor person cannot be deemed as falling under the act of title trust between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, it shall not be deemed null and void on the ground that

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged. The argument is without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)