The nature of the offer of security under the proviso of Article 588

The provisions of the proviso of this Article (Article 576 of the Gu Residents Act) refer to the establishment of a security right or the conclusion of a guarantee contract for a security right, which is insufficient only to establish a security right contract or to establish a guarantee contract from a guarantor.

Article 588 of the Civil Act

Mancheon

Freeboard of authority

Noh Jeong-hee

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na196 delivered on October 10, 1962

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the defendant and the intervenor are assessed against the defendant, and the remaining costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of each appeal by the plaintiff's agent and defendant's agent are as shown in the separate appellate brief.

As to ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s agent

It cannot be recognized that the original judgment does not admit Eul's evidence No. 1 as evidence of the facts in the lawsuit, and that there was an error in its adoption as evidence. The evidence regarding the agreement for payment in kind can not be found that the original judgment conflicts with Eul's evidence of the agreement for payment in kind with the above evidence No. 1, or that each statement in the court below adopted with the above evidence No. 1, e.g., the statement in the lawsuit, e., e., e., e., s., e., e., s., e., e., s., e., s., e., s., e., s., e., s.s. 1 and s.s. 1.s. 1 and s. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. . . . . . . . .........................

All arguments are groundless.

As to the second ground for appeal

No. 2 is one of the comprehensive evidence together with other evidence, and it is obvious by the original judgment that the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party 2 was adopted as evidence for the sale and purchase of the non-party 2 and the non-party 2's original judgment, and there is no illegality in the process of proof. Even though there is an error in the part "the right documents on the non-party 2" in the reasoning explanation, it cannot be the reason for the reversal of the original judgment because no influence exists on the non-party 1's original judgment, and the agreement on the non-party 2's omission of the intermediate registration is not acceptable with the contents on the non-party 1's written opinion, and it is not reasonable to recognize the facts in the original judgment as to the non-party 3's rejection of the statement of the result of the examination of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2's opinion on the non-party 2's acceptance of obligation after the defendant 3's acceptance of obligation and the defendant 2's opinion on the non-party 3's acceptance of obligation after the original judgment.

On the third ground for the same reason

The phrase “not to recognize an agreement on the omission of intermediate registration” as stated in the evidence No. 1 is the same as the above explanation. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

As to the ground of appeal by the defendant representative

However, as provided by the proviso of Article 588 of the Civil Act (Article 576 of the Gu Residents Act), security means the establishment of a security right or the conclusion of a guarantee contract, and is merely insufficient to accept the new establishment of a security right contract or the new establishment of a guarantee contract from the guarantor, and the buyer is obligated to accept the new establishment of a security right or the acceptance of a guarantee contract from the guarantor. However, the buyer is not deemed to have a security right or the acceptance of a substitute for this, and the judgment based on the premise that the intervenor's right to refuse the payment has not been extinguished is not illegal. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, by applying Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act prior to the amendment, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)