(a) In cases where a claim for provisional registration and cancellation of the principal registration are filed on the ground that the full amount of the secured obligation is repaid, whether the above claim contains a intent to seek future performance where it falls short of the full amount repayment;

(b) Validity of damage by filing lawsuits;

(c) Validity of deposit of partial performance of obligations;

(d) If the registration made by the mortgagee to a third party is null and void, a copy of the request for cancellation by subrogation of the debtor.

E. Whether the obligor could oppose the obligee with the disposition of the right of subrogation exercised by subrogation without the notification of the obligee's subrogation right

A. If the obligor asserts that he/she paid the full amount of the secured obligation and requested the implementation of the procedures for the provisional registration and the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, but the deposit for repayment is found to have any remaining obligation because it did not extinguish the full amount of the obligation, it is reasonable to interpret that the aforementioned claim includes the purport that he/she shall repay the outstanding obligation and then seek cancellation of the above registration. This also has the interest to claim in advance as a future lawsuit.

(b) The filing telephone of a lawsuit is a judicial compromise that has the same effect as that of a final judgment and has the same effect as that of a final judgment, so if such settlement is made, the rights and obligations based on

(c) A deposit for partial performance of an obligation may not be a valid deposit for performance unless the obligee accepts it, unless there are special circumstances to the effect that partial performance of the obligation is valid.

D. Where an ownership transfer registration has been made for the purpose of securing the obligation, the obligor may obtain the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration from a third party by repaying the obligation such as principal and interest even after the period of reimbursement expires, so long as the ownership transfer registration against the third party by the obligee is null and void by subrogation of the obligee, the obligor may seek implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration against

E. Even though the obligee does not exercise the obligee's right based on the obligee's subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Act and notify the obligor of the fact, in case where the obligor knows that his right is exercised by the obligee, it cannot be set up against the obligee with the right of subrogation.

A. Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Act: (b) Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act; (c) Article 487 of the Civil Act; (d) Article 404, Article 186, E. Article 405 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2270 delivered on September 22, 1981, 81Da548 delivered on May 10, 1983, and 86Da2286 delivered on May 12, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 77Da235 delivered on June 7, 197, Supreme Court Decision 84Da207 delivered on August 14, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 84Da161 delivered on November 22, 1983, and 84Da781 delivered on September 11, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 70Da805 delivered on July 24, 1970.

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellee (defendant 2)

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na501 decided July 4, 1985

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal by Defendant 2 are assessed against the same defendant.

(1) We examine Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal.

(A) On the first ground for appeal by Defendant 2 (this is the same as Defendant 2’s ground for appeal, and thus, it is also deemed as follows); and

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the provisional registration and the registration of transfer of ownership for the purpose of preserving the right to claim ownership transfer on the 1,2,000 won of the loan principal until August 31, 1979, with respect to the 1,3 real estate of this case, which was made by the plaintiff and the defendant 1 for the purpose of securing the right to claim ownership transfer on September 4, 1978, the court below held that if the plaintiff fails to perform his obligation owed by the plaintiff, such as the registration tax, defense tax, judicial affairs fee, acquisition tax, etc. according to the above registration as to each of the above real estate, the above 6,00,000 won, and interest and delay damages on the loan principal until August 31, 1979, the court below held that even if the above 3rd real estate was disposed of voluntarily, the plaintiff did not claim ownership transfer registration and the lawsuit related thereto, etc., and that the above 4,000,000 won was without merit in the agreement between the plaintiff and the above 1971.

(B) On the second ground of appeal:

In the event that a debtor claims for the execution of the provisional registration and the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration with respect to the provisional registration and the procedure for cancellation registration with respect to the registration of ownership transfer by asserting that the debtor repaid the secured debt in full, but the deposit for repayment is found to have any remaining debt because it does not reach the extinguishment of the entire debt, it is reasonable to interpret that the above claim includes the purport to repay the outstanding debt and then seek cancellation of the above registration in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu286, May 12, 1987). Accordingly, according to the records, the plaintiff sought cancellation of the provisional registration and ownership transfer registration in this case under the condition that the secured debt in this case should be repaid in full (see Supreme Court Decision 86Da2286, May 12, 1987). It is clear that the court below made the claim that the above repayment deposit was made in full by subrogation or by subrogation and the secured debt in full, and it does not affect the validity of the provisional registration, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as above.

(C) On the third ground of appeal:

The court below held on February 4, 1985 that the plaintiff deposited 9,65,538 won as the interest on the loan amount of 4,200,00 won and 9,655,538 won as the interest on February 4, 1985 from the date of loan loan to February 4, 1985, but this deposit more than 9,445,396 won as the actual debt amount, and all of Defendant 1's obligations against Defendant 2 were extinguished on the same day. The plaintiff's obligations against Defendant 1 were 12,243,835 won as of February 4, 1985 with interest on the loan amount of 12,628,35 won as of February 4, 1985, and 385 won as the interest rate of 12,500 won as of February 5, 1985; 205 won as the interest rate of 9,515 won as of 250 won as the principal and 25 won as of the plaintiff's.

However, according to the above evidence Nos. 4 and 2. Defendant 1 and 2. Defendant 2 filed an application for settlement at the Seoul Civil and Security District Court of 82.28,00, and Defendant 2 received 4,200,000 won from Defendant 1 to 40,000 won, and completed provisional registration procedure for Defendant 1. (2) Defendant 1 did not pay the above amount to Defendant 2 by 40,000 won for 40,000 won for 50,000 won for 40,000 won for 50,000 won for 50,000 won for 40,000 won for 50,000 won for 50,000 won for 40,000 won for 50,000 won for 20,000 won for 40,000 won for 5,00 won for 40,000 won for 5,00 won for 5,00 won for 204,0

Nevertheless, it is reasonable that the court below erred in misunderstanding the validity of the protocol of compromise, which has been decided as above, and thus, it is reasonable to point this out.

(2) We examine Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal.

(A) On the first and second grounds:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the first and second real estate were registered under the name of the defendant 1 and registered provisional registration under the name of the defendant 2 again, the provisional registration, the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant 2, and that there was no dispute between the parties. Based on the evidence of the city, the plaintiff borrowed 6,00,000 won from the defendant 1 on April 20, 1973 for the interest rate of 3% per month, 2 months after the due date, and provisional registration for the first and second real estate in this case was made as security. Since the plaintiff failed to pay the above principal and interest as well as after the due date of the above provisional registration, the court below rejected the principal registration of the above provisional registration under the name of the defendant 2 for the purpose of this case as it did not constitute a violation of the law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the establishment of the principal and interest on the above provisional registration, and it can be found that there was no violation of the law as to the above 2191.2.

(B) On the third ground of appeal:

A deposit for partial performance of an obligation cannot be a valid deposit for payment unless it is accepted by the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu781, Sept. 11, 1984; 83Meu161, Nov. 22, 1983). However, Defendant 1’s obligation against Defendant 2 by Defendant 1 with Defendant 2 as a deposit recipient, as seen earlier, was extinguished by Defendant 1’s deposit for partial performance in excess of KRW 4,200,00,00 for Defendant 2 with Defendant 1’s deposit for partial performance, unless there are special circumstances that make it possible for the obligee to be deemed that a partial performance is a valid provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu781, Sept. 11, 1984; 814, Jul. 24, 1984).

(C) On the fourth ground of appeal:

Where the registration of ownership transfer has been made for the purpose of securing a creditor's obligation, the debtor may obtain the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer even after the payment period has expired, so long as the registration of ownership transfer against a third party is null and void, the debtor can obtain the procedure for registration of ownership transfer against a third party by subrogation of the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da805, Jul. 24, 1970). According to Article 405 of the Civil Act, where the creditor exercises the debtor's right based on the subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Act and notifies the debtor thereof, even if the creditor does not notify thereof, if the debtor knows that his right is acting on behalf of the creditor after the payment period, he cannot set up against the creditor with such disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da118, Mar. 22, 1977). In this case, the defendant 1 is obviously null and void as the plaintiff's act of disposal in this case's right of disposal in this case against the defendant 24.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same effect is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the subrogation right like the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is groundless.

(3) Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the same defendant are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)