[1] Where a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property jointly created the right to collateral, first of all, a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property has secured obligation

[2] Whether the subrogation right of a subordinate mortgagee on a real estate owned by an obligor to the real estate owned by the surety shall be extended to the real estate owned by the surety (negative)

[1] In a case where the creditor acquired one collateral on the land owned by the creditor as a joint collateral with the land owned by the creditor and acquired two collateral on the land owned by the principal debtor separately, the agreement on the transaction of bills, which is the cause of the secured debt on the real estate owned by the creditor as a collateral, does not specify a settlement term and does not yet request the sale of the land of the secured real estate, as long as the collateral has been executed on the land of the principal debtor on the ground of the non-performance of the secured obligation, the transaction under the agreement on the transaction of bills between the creditor and the person who has pledged to secure another's property, is terminated by it

[2] In a case where the creditor acquired the right to collateral on one occasion on the land owned by the creditor as joint collateral with the land owned by the mortgagee and acquired the right to collateral on two occasions on the land owned by the principal debtor separately, if the right to collateral is exercised on the land owned by the principal debtor due to the non-performance of the obligation, and the amount exceeding the amount of the right to collateral on one occasion from the auction proceeds is distributed, Article 368(2) of the Civil Code is not applicable in light of the legal principles of the mortgagee, so the creditor who is the mortgagee is not entitled to exercise the right to collateral on one occasion on his land owned by the mortgagee, and therefore, the registration of creation of a right to collateral on the property owned by the principal debtor should

[1] Article 357 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 368 (2), 481, and 482 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu15601 delivered on November 28, 1989 (Gong1990, 146) Supreme Court Decision 91Da17979 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2516), Supreme Court Decision 92Da48567 delivered on March 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1167) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da25417 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong194, 1638) (Gong194, 1638), Supreme Court Order 95Ma500 delivered on June 13, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2493)

Plaintiff (Dongdong Law Firm, Attorneys Park Jong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

New World Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (formerly: Han-il Investment Finance Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 94Na11224 delivered on July 14, 1995

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 5 billion won of the total amount of debt on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were able to purchase and sell the above 40 billion won of the total amount of debt on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were able to purchase and sell the above 40 billion won of the total amount of debt on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were able to purchase and sell the above 40 billion won of the total amount of debt on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were able to purchase and sell the above 50 billion won of the total amount of debt on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were able to purchase and sell the above 90 billion won of the total amount of debt on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were able to purchase the above 90 billion won of the forest.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

3. However, since the agreement of this case, which is the cause of the secured debt of this case, did not have a settlement term, and did not yet apply to the land of this case. However, insofar as the defendant filed a request for auction on the land of this case, which was owned by the non-party 1 and joint collateral, the transaction based on the agreement of this case was terminated by it and the secured debt was determined at the time of the request for auction (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu545 delivered on October 11, 198, 89Da15601 delivered on November 28, 198, 89). Thus, since the agreement of this case which is the cause of the secured debt of this case, which is the secured debt of this case, was 10 billion won which was set up at the time of the request for auction of this case, the court below's decision No. 1 and the secured debt of this case was 20 billion won which was set at the same time as the secured debt of this case, the remaining land of this case was not set at 150 billion won.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)