607, 608 of the Civil Code and the effect of security for an obligation

Even if the promise for payment in kind is null and void because it is in violation of the Civil Act, Article 607 and Article 608, the ownership transfer registration made by the promise for payment in kind shall be valid to the extent of the effect of the security

Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act

68Da1570 decided Nov. 19, 1968 (Kakad 6206, 6207, and 6208; Supreme Court Decision 16Noh 193 decided Nov. 19, 196; Civil Code No. 487(14), 431, 432; Civil Code No. 607(40)475 decided Nov. 19, 196)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (73Gahap67) 201

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On July 14, 1966, the defendant implemented the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, as it was No. 4983 on the receipt of the female registry office of the Gwangju District Court No. 4983 on July 14, 1966, with respect to 11-2 Hobbbes per unit 1, 197, 24-24, 49, and 5-2, 197

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

In this case, at 24th 49 square meters and 11th 2th 2th 12th 2th 2th 22th 2th 22th 22th 24th 24th 24th 1992, which was assessed on the ground (hereinafter the real estate in this case) were originally owned by Nonparty 1, and the registration of the establishment was completed with Nonparty 2, who is the defendant's living together, and accordingly, the registration of the ownership transfer was completed with the defendant's name as stated in the purport of the purport of the registration of the establishment of the real estate in this case. Since the deceased Nonparty 1 died on December 4, 1968, the plaintiff 1 as his wife, as his wife, was jointly inherited by the deceased, and the non-party 3, who was the first 4th 196th 4th 196 th 100,000 th 10th 10th 195, the above purport of the registration of the ownership transfer was requested to the above third 4th 3rd.

As seen above, the plaintiffs' legal representative 1.3 and 2. The above promise for payment in kind exceeds the market price of the real estate at 196.1.19, 196.1. 3, 196. 8, 196. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 1, 196 . 1. 8, 197 . 1. 1, 196 . 6. 1, 196 . 8. 6. 1, 196 . 6. 1, 196 . 1, 196 . 3, 196 . 3, 196 . 6. 1, 197 . 3's 6. 6. 1 1, 6. 6. 3. 1, 6. 3. 3's 1's 1's 1's 3. 1's 1's 1's 1'

However, the defendant's attorney first held that since the repayment deposit of the non-party 3 was made against the non-party 4, the plaintiff's claim cannot be asserted against the defendant with this deposit. Thus, as shown in the former part, the defendant directly acquired the registration of ownership transfer as a third party under the above contract as a third party's security contract for the plaintiff and the non-party 4 (the non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party's non-party 4's non-party's non-party 4's non-party's non-party's non-party 4's non-party -

Therefore, the defendant's objection is groundless.

Next, the defendant's attorney paid 130,000 won to the non-party 5's lease on a deposit basis regardless of the lease on the building among the real estate in this case. If it is not paid, this claim cannot be followed, but there is no proof that the defendant paid the above lease on a deposit basis to the non-party.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case to the plaintiffs, who are the successors of the non-party net succession. Therefore, this claim is justified and the judgment of the court of first instance sharing the result is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are borne by the losing party and is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge) Yang Young-tae Kim