The scope of damages sustained by creditors due to non-existence of the right to collateral security.

If the secured debt exceeds the maximum debt amount of the mortgage, in order to calculate the amount of damages sustained by the mortgaged mortgage due to the failure to set the said mortgage, the time after the time when the debt becomes due and when the execution of the mortgage is expected or when the claim for damages is exercised as a lawsuit, the market price of the mortgaged object shall be determined in accordance with the standard at the time of closing the arguments in the fact-finding proceedings, and the amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount may be recognized as the amount of the

Articles 357 and 750 of the Civil Act

Han Cable Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2308 delivered on February 23, 1978

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the employee of the Guro-dong Office under the defendant's jurisdiction was requested by the non-party 1 to accept the forged resident registration card as if the non-party 1 transferred his residence as indicated in its reasoning, and was in violation of the Resident Registration Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, and received it by negligence, and had the person who pretended the non-party 1 register his seal as the forged seal under the above non-party 1, and issued the certificate of seal impression, and recognized the fact that the above non-party 1 changed his address as to the forest owned by the non-party 1, and had the debtor enter into a mortgage contract with the non-party 24,00,000 won with the maximum debt amount as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the examination of the records in light of the process of examination of evidence conducted to find the above facts, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cause of tort, which is without evidence, and it is without merit.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on June 24, 1975, and supplied the products to the above non-party 2 who operated the sales agency of the plaintiff's products on credit until December 13, 1975, and the remaining amount reaches KRW 74,774,572. The above non-party 1 filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of cancellation due to the invalidity of the ground as indicated in the judgment, and the above non-party 2 revoked the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security by a final judgment in favor of the court. The above non-party 2 did not own any property, and the plaintiff who concealed his whereabouts could not recover the above credit amount, and eventually the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 24,00,000 of the amount of the claims secured by the right to collateral security.

However, in order to calculate the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to the failure to establish the above right to collateral security, first of all, if the Plaintiff exercises his right by means of a lawsuit at the time when the right to claim damages is expected to be implemented or when exercising the right to claim damages, the court shall determine the market price of the above forest land in accordance with the standard at the time of the closure of pleadings in the fact-finding court. The amount of damages can be recognized as the amount equivalent to the maximum amount of claims only when the market price becomes more than the maximum amount of claims. Even if the records are recorded, the court of first instance concluded that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the above maximum amount of claims, without showing the market price, even though there was no data to find out how much the market price in the above forest is the market price. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of damages due to the failure to establish the above right to collateral security, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation. Accordingly, the above original judgment or the

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)