Cases where the secured party cannot be deemed to have the right to use and benefit from the object of the sale security;

It cannot be said that there is a right to use and make profits from the property of the secured party who can seek an objection for the disposal of the secured real estate as the secured party.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 66Na126 delivered on June 10, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the records, the plaintiff argued that if the land is returned within the time limit by means of sale security or special agreement, as argued in the gusheshesheshes, the plaintiff shall own the plaintiff clearly, but both parties to the case at the first day of pleading No. 10:00 of May 27, 1966, the court below asserted that the contract of the land of this case was not disputed. According to the purport of the oral argument, the above assertion is the object of security, and it seems to be the withdrawal of the special agreement that is the ownership of the plaintiff clearly due to the lapse of the period of redemption. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has the right to use and benefit from the contract for the disposal of the secured real estate. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that held that the claim for compensation of this case based on the premise that the right to use and benefit exists is groundless, and that the above purport is the same.

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

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court