A. In a monetary lending and borrowing relationship, in case where the debtor prepared documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership to his own immovables and delivered them to the creditor, it is reasonable to view that the intention of the party concerned is in the sale of such immovables as security.

(b) The case holding that the sale security contract does not violate Article 103 or 104 of the Civil Act;

In a monetary lending relationship, where a debtor delivers a document required for the registration of ownership transfer to a creditor, the intention of the party concerned shall be deemed as a sale security in the event that the debtor has delivered the document required for the registration of ownership transfer to the creditor, and the agreement was reached that the debtor may transfer the right to the real estate exceeding ten million won at the market price to a third party for the purpose of security or under the circumstances of the creditor, while borrowing 50,000 won in money, and such agreement cannot be readily concluded as an invalid contract in violation of this Act or this Article.

Article 372 of the Civil Act; Article 103 of the Civil Act; Article 104 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Sambu Industrial Promotion Co., Ltd. and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na754 delivered on April 22, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na754 delivered on April 22, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s Gangwon-gu and the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1.

In general, in a monetary lending and borrowing relationship, the intention of the parties shall be deemed to have been the sale security in the case where the debtor's real estate owned by the debtor as a sale security has been delivered to the creditor with the documents required for the registration of ownership transfer, and it shall not be deemed that the movable property, which is various documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, has been secured. If the records and the court below adopted as evidence, the court below acknowledged that the interest rate of 50,000 won in the amount from the defendant Sambu Industry Promotion Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Co., Ltd.") on November 3, 1967 shall be three months for the repayment period of 50,000 won in the amount of the loan to the same company, and under an agreement that the right may be transferred to a third party under the circumstances of the defendant Co., Ltd., issued a registration certificate, a sale certificate, a certificate of seal imprint, etc. required for the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate, and the defendant Co., Ltd. shall not be found to have been held the registration of ownership transfer under special agreement for repurchase.

Therefore, the defendant company's transfer of ownership under its own name on November 22, 1967 is due to a sale security contract between the plaintiff and thus it cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below to this purport is without merit.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

The Plaintiff borrowed money of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 from the market price to the Defendant company as security, or agreed that the right may be transferred to a third party under the circumstances of the Defendant company by way of sale and purchase of the instant real estate, the sale and purchase price of which exceeds KRW 10,00,00,00,00, in the name of the Defendant company, and such a contract cannot be deemed an invalid contract in violation of Article 103 or 104 of the Civil Act (the act of offering the right to the Plaintiff of the Defendant company to a third party without transferring it to the third party is a separate problem if the Defendant company’s obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arises due to the violation of the agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant company as set forth in its reasoning). Therefore, there is no error in the record of the lower judgment that the Plaintiff cannot

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)