In a case where a provisional registration has been made in order to secure a loan claim, and the principal registration of transfer of ownership was requested for the exercise of the security right, but it was exchanged or changed to a loan claim, whether the basic basis for the request is identical

Where a provisional registration has been made to secure the right to claim the transfer of ownership in order to secure a loan claim, it is difficult to view that the basic basis of the claim is not the same because it is merely a different way to resolve a dispute concerning the same economic interest while seeking the implementation of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership to execute a security right based on the above claim.

Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil History District Court (82 Gohap2403)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,00,000 with the amount of KRW 5,50,000 from February 1, 1981 to September 10 of the same year and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from September 11, 1981 to September 10 of the same year.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff shall revoke the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,00,000 with 25 percent per annum from August 29, 1979 to the full payment.

(The plaintiff changed the claim in the trial, and the purport of the claim before the change was to be made by the defendant to the non-party 6 (the defendant of the court of first instance) on the real estate stated in the attached list, which was received on July 30, 1979 by the Seodaemun District Court of Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul District Court No. 18982, which was made on October 30, 1979 on the basis of the provisional registration made on October 30, 1979).

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The facts that Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (each copy of the register), No. 8 (O. of the above 0), No. 9 (O. of the company register), and No. 3 (O. of the defendant's name), No. 4, and No. 6 (O. of the same document), and No. 7 (O. of the same document), and No. 9 (O. of the first instance court witness's name), and No. 2 (O. of the same document), the authenticity of which is recognized by the testimony of the non-party No. 1, No. 9 (O. of the above 0), No. 90 (O. of the above 0), and No. 90 (O. of the above 0) were sent to the non-party 1, and the facts that the above documents were affixed to the non-party 1, No. 900 (O. of the above 00) and no dispute exists between the parties, and the non-party 1, No. 3, and the non-party 4 were trusted.

On the other hand, the defendant changed the exchange between the court of first instance and the non-party 6 (the non-party 6) to the loan claim that the plaintiff shall pay the amount of 7,00,000 won and the amount of 25% per annum from August 29, 1979 to the full payment system, because the plaintiff lost the identity of the basis of the claim, it is argued to the purport that this should not be permitted. On the other hand, in this case, the plaintiff's request for the transfer registration of ownership to prevent the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on the real estate stated in the attached list to exercise the security right on July 30, 1979 and the provisional registration was made on October 30, 1979, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's request for the transfer registration of ownership was invalid because it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's request for the transfer registration has no different effect in the first instance court as to the same economic interest (the above claim for repayment of the loan).

Furthermore, the defendant's assertion that if the non-party 5, who is the defendant's father, takes office as the director and the representative director of the non-party 7 company that takes over the non-party 5, the defendant's remaining debt is exempted since the non-party 2 takes office as the representative director of the above company, and the non-party 2 takes office as the above company's representative director, the defendant's remaining debt is exempted. It is difficult to recognize it only by the statement of the evidence No. 5 other than the part of the non-party 2's testimony (excluding the part of the above trust) which the non-party

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,500,000, which is the remainder of the above principal from February 1, 1981 to September 10 of the same year, and the amount of KRW 5,500,000, which is the remainder of the above principal, within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act from September 11 to the full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the plaintiff filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer at the court of first instance to exchange and change the claim for the loan and seek the loan. It is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's request, and with respect to the payment of litigation costs, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied, and with respect to the provisional execution declaration, Article 199 of the same Act shall be applied.

Judges Man-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-damng