Legal relations where a secured party of an unregistered building disposes of the building before its maturity but the obligor fully pays his/her obligation within the maturity period.

Even if a secured party of an unregistered building has disposed of the building to a third party for the exercise of the security right before the expiration of the payment period, unless the ownership transfer registration is made in the name of the third party, the obligor can make a due repayment within the payment period, and due to such repayment, the secured party loses the right to claim the ownership transfer registration against the obligor.

Article 372 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 87Na1819 delivered on February 16, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

Examining the evidence cited by the judgment below in comparison with the records, the defendant borrowed the unregistered building of this case which he owned from the non-party 2 on September 12, 1979, the amount of KRW 1,300,000 from the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 on December 31 of the same year with the maturity date for payment, and recognized the defendant's seal impression certificate and the certificate of seal impression to the non-party 2, and paid the loan in full within the time limit, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, and the evidence No. 2 (a sales contract) of this case is not recognized as the authenticity, and therefore, the measures

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

If an unregistered building was provided as a security and the loan was fully repaid within the due date, the secured party would lose his/her right to claim the transfer registration of ownership as the secured party, and even if the secured party disposed of the real estate to a third party for the enforcement of the security right before the due date arrives, unless the transfer registration of ownership is made in the name of the third party, the debtor would make the repayment within the due date and the secured party will lose his/her right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the debtor.

In the opposing opinion, we cannot accept the argument that when a secured party of an unregistered building sells it to a third party for the exercise of a security right before the maturity date, the obligation is extinguished and only the settlement problem remains.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)