The effect of a provisional registration made for debt security and a deposit for repayment made on condition that the principal registration be cancelled.

Where a principal registration has been made based on a provisional registration and its provisional registration for the purpose of securing a debt, the creditor is not obligated to cancel the provisional registration and its principal registration based on such provisional registration, in exchange for the payment prior to or in exchange for the payment of debt. Thus, even though the plaintiff, who is the creditor, has no obligation to pay in advance or simultaneously with the payment, it cannot be deemed to be based on the principal place of the debt, that the subrogation for the obligation is subject to the cancellation of the provisional registration and the principal registration, and unless the plaintiff receives it, the repayment deposit shall not be effective.

Articles 487 and 536 of the Civil Act

Appellant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Park Dong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na1350,1351 Decided June 29, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the real estate of this case was purchased through the macro evidence and trusted the title of the registration in front of Nonparty 2. The ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff was made in the name of the plaintiff 20 million won in the meaning of a security of loan obligation against the plaintiff 20 million won in the above 300,000 won, and it was registered in the name of the plaintiff 20,000,000 won in the name of the plaintiff 1978, and the plaintiff did not pay his debt by August 20, 1978, and it was passed through December 3, 1980 upon receipt of the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff 20,000,000 won in the above 30,000 won in the name of the above 30,000 won in the name of the above 30,000 won in the name of the above 1979.

However, in the event that a provisional registration and the principal registration based on such provisional registration have been passed through for the security of the obligation, the obligee does not have the obligation to cancel the provisional registration and the principal registration based on such provisional registration as security in exchange for the repayment of obligation prior to or in exchange for the repayment of obligation. According to the description of the evidence No. 2 (Deposit) adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance, it can be known that the Defendant Gambling type is a benefit in return for the above deposit, and is subject to the cancellation of the provisional registration and principal registration of the Plaintiff’s title as above on

However, even though the plaintiff, who is the creditor, did not have the obligation to pay in advance or simultaneously perform, the provisional registration and cancellation of the principal registration cannot be deemed to be the content of the debt, and the deposit for repayment shall not be effective unless the plaintiff receives it. Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that held that the deposit for repayment with the above condition is a valid deposit without any explanation of the special circumstances where the effective deposit for repayment can be made. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the reasoning and incomplete deliberation, and affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The judgment of the court below is without merit. The judgment of the court below is not reversed in this respect without examining other arguments.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young