A request for registration of creation of a collateral security on the ground that the registration was illegally cancelled shall be made against the owner at the time of cancellation of the registration.

A request for registration of recovery of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the ground that it was illegally cancelled shall be filed against the owner as at the time of cancellation of the registration.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 67Na522 delivered on July 3, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the facts duly established by the court below are as follows: (a) the agent of the plaintiff, who was omitted, lent 500,000 won of the plaintiff's money several times to the defendant 1 through the non-party 3, who was his wife, and (b) on September 5, 1965, the defendant 1 received a promissory note of 600,000 won in total at the value of the principal and interest on the real estate owned by the defendant 1 on September 5, 1965; (c) the defendant 1 delivered the above promissory note to the non-party 2, who was the wife of the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff's agent, returned the above promissorysory note to the defendant with the approval of the non-party 1, who was the plaintiff's agent, and completed the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security; (d) the defendant 1 loaned the above money to the non-party 2 through the plaintiff's agent, and thus, rejected the plaintiff 1's testimony.

No. 2 and the theory that there is no clear explanation that Nonparty 2 did not adopt the evidence No. 2 cited in the original judgment, but according to its reasoning, it does not have any evidence to determine the fact that Nonparty 2 had made the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security with the consent of Nonparty 1 by the plaintiff's agent. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a statement that the contents of the above evidence No. 2 are not materials to determine the above facts of recognition, and the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence in the judgment below, since Nonparty 2 and his wife were one of the causes of divorce between Nonparty 1 and his wife and Nonparty 2, who had received the principal and interest of this case, arbitrarily cancelled the registration of creation of collateral security by receiving the principal and interest of this case, and the contents of evidence No. 2 (Provisional Judgment No. 2) stated in the judgment below without taking any other legitimate evidence cited by the court below, and it cannot be said that there was a violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence by not taking the contents of evidence No. 2.

No. 3, the court below acknowledged the fact that this mortgage was cancelled with the consent of the non-party 1 and the records cited by the plaintiff, even after examining the various evidences cited by the plaintiff, there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence against the rules of experience, such as theory of lawsuit, and the arguments are not accepted, since the court below excluded the fact-finding based on the evidence duly adopted by the court below.

No. 4, even based on the Plaintiff’s proposal itself, Defendant 2 is a person who has obtained the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security. Thus, Defendant 2’s claim for the registration of the right to collateral security on the ground that the registration of the right to collateral security was illegally cancelled by the court below is against the owner at the time when the registration of the right to collateral security was cancelled, and thus, Defendant 2’s claim for the registration of the right to collateral security was dismissed on the ground that it was against the owner at the time when the registration of the right to collateral security was cancelled is just, and as such, Defendant 2’s claim for the registration of the right to collateral security was rejected, and as long as the registration of cancellation of the right

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)