The validity of the registration of the titleholder who completed the registration of transfer of ownership in violation of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act.

Even if the registration of transfer of ownership due to payment in kind is null and void in violation of Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Act, it is valid to the extent of security purpose. Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership which has been completed by acquiring the real estate from the creditor is valid because it is obtained from the complete owner in the external relationship.

Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act

On November 19, 1968, 68Da1570 decided Nov. 19, 1968 (Kakad 6207, 6208, 6206; 16 third residents and 16th residents and 193 of the Supreme Court's decision, Article 487 (14), 487 (16), 432, 607 (40), and 67Da909 decided Jul. 11, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 8489, Supreme Court Decision 15B residents and 128 of the Civil Act, Article 607 (30)474 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (69Da5097) of the first instance court

The appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's demand for extension in the trial is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal and expenses incurred by the expansion of claim by the plaintiff shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

Defendant 1, with respect to the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on the ground of sale as of March 16, 1967, received on March 18, 1967 as of the 791-617 large 28 large 28 large 717 large east-gu Seoul U.S. children and the 11 unit 11 unit 11 unit 1 unit 12, Seongbuk-gu 1967, Defendant 1 completed the provisional registration for securing the right to claim transfer of ownership by promise of sale as of August 23, 1968, and the provisional registration for securing the right to claim transfer of ownership as of August 21, 1968, which was made by the receipt of the above registration office as of November 21, 1968 as of August 27, 1968.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc.(the plaintiff changed the claim against the defendant 1 in the trial and added the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration to the defendant 2).

Since the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Non-party 791's 617 real estate for the above 617 real estate and 11 real estate shall be registered as the original non-party 1 for the purpose of securing the ownership transfer registration as stated in the purport of this claim before the plaintiff 1 and the provisional registration for preserving the ownership transfer as stated in the purport of this claim was made in the above 7th day of February 7, 1967, and the ownership transfer registration for the above 6th day of the above real estate shall not be disputed between the parties, and the above 1, 2, and 3 of the above real estate shall be revoked for the purpose of securing the ownership transfer registration for the above 6th day after the above 6th day of the above 6th day of the 6th day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the above 6th day of the 1st day of the 5th day of the above 6th day of the 1st day of the above 1st day of the pleadings.

Next, even if the cause for the registration of the transfer of ownership by Defendant 1 to the above real estate is purely traded, it exceeds 1,00,000 won at the market price of the above real estate at the time of the sale, and since it was sold in 250,000 won with an amount that is within 1/4 of the above sale and purchase, it is null and void as it is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness, the registration must be cancelled, and accordingly, it is argued that each registration of Defendant 2 should be cancelled. Therefore, it is not purely traded, but for the Plaintiff’s debt security against the Defendant. Thus, it is recognized as above, not for the Plaintiff’s debt security, and there is no evidence to deem it null and void since the above assertion by the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 as well as the above loan for consumption and the security contract following the above agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 as invalid.

Next, the plaintiff's deposit with Defendant 1 for repayment of the above loan principal and 390,278 won as its interest. Since the plaintiff alleged to the effect that the registration of each of the above loan principal and 390,278 won should be cancelled, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 5 (deposit) without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff's deposit with Defendant 1 at the rate of 250,000 won borrowed principal and 390,278 won per annum between September 18, 1967 and the above deposit date shall not be deemed to have been accepted, since the above loan principal and interest portion of the above deposit amount are deposited below the amount within the scope of the interest limit under the Interest Limitation Act, the plaintiff's loan with Defendant 1 shall not be deemed to have been repaid with the above loan principal and interest amount, and even if the plaintiff did not repay the loan principal and interest to the above defendant 2 after the expiration of the contract period, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff's loan principal and interest cannot be asserted as valid.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection can be seen as a single appearance, and it is unfair for it to be dismissed. Accordingly, the original judgment that forms the same conclusion is just and the defendant's appeal is therefore justified. Therefore, it is dismissed. Since the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the transfer of ownership is without merit, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the transfer of ownership is also dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Kim Jong-nam (Presiding Judge)