Agreement and Rule of experience of Bank's joint collateral acquisition

The case is that a bank acquires several real estate as joint collateral in accordance with the empirical rule and agrees in advance to cancel the registration of creation of a security right when a problem arises with regard to some of them.

Article 357 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap34)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's original judgment is revoked. (This part is only the purport of the appeal) The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a new mortgage on each real estate recorded in the separate sheet in the separate sheet in the name of the defendant on July 16, 1970, made under the name of the defendant with respect to the plaintiff, the registration of establishment of a new mortgage on the same day, the additional establishment of a new mortgage made under No. 10327 on the same day, the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the same day, the additional mortgage registered under No. 10328 on the same day, the registration of the establishment of a new superficies made under No. 11910 on the same day, the registration of the establishment of a new superficies completed under the name of the defendant on the same day, and the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new

The court costs are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials.

With respect to the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 5 of the attached list, the fact that the registration of collateral security, additional collateral security and superficies creation has been made under the name of the defendant as to the above real estate (as to the site stated in paragraph (1) above, about 100 square meters), is without dispute between the parties, and evidence Nos. 2-1, 2 (each copy), 5-1, 2, 3 (Written Consent of Site Exchange), and 6 (Receipt), and 9-1, 6. The plaintiff did not obtain from Nonparty 1 on Nov. 24, 1969 that the registration of ownership transfer should be entered in the attached list No. 1, 2, and 777 square meters on Nov. 24, 1969, and the remaining part of the attached list No. 1, 267 square meters on Nov. 1, 207, the plaintiff purchased from Nonparty 1, 296, and the remaining part of the attached list No. 1, 36700 square meters on Nov. 67.

Around July 15, 1970, the Plaintiff acquired 100 parcels of real estate including the real estate indicated in the attached list, which was owned by Nonparty 1, as a collateral for the non-party obligor Dive Industries Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff and the non-party 1 agreed to register the creation of a collateral in the front of the Defendant bank, once the non-party had already sold or exchanged the above collateral to a third party, but until then the registration of the transfer of ownership was made, the Plaintiff had registered the creation of the collateral in the front of the Defendant bank as a whole as to the whole of the above collateral, and had it completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral in order to cancel the above registration. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the non-party 1 did not have any obligation to cancel the registration of the establishment of the collateral in the attached list, since the real estate recorded in the attached list was purchased or exchanged by the Plaintiff from the non-party 1 prior to the registration of the establishment of the collateral, the Plaintiff bank and the non-party 1 had no obligation to cancel the registration of the creation of collateral.

Accordingly, the court below's witness 3, non-party 1, and non-party 4's testimony, part of the criminal record verification at the court of the trial (written opinion, the statement to non-party 3, the investigation of the suspect and investigation report to non-party 1) which correspond to the plaintiff's above argument is the case where the defendant bank acquired several real estate as joint security, and the bank under experience agreed in advance that it would cancel the registration of the creation of security right when some of the real estate is at issue, and the acquisition of security right is at the same time an uncertain object. In this case, it is difficult to view that the defendant bank could not have any other special circumstance that the defendant bank should conduct the above exceptional affairs, and if the non-party 1 entered into a special agreement with the defendant with the plaintiff, it is hard to find that the special agreement is directly related to the defendant's criminal liability (the crime of breach of trust), and there is no evidence to prove that it should be no other evidence to prove that it should be attached to the plaintiff's law.

If so, it is true whether the plaintiff's claim in this case under the premise that there is a special agreement between the non-party 1 and the defendant on the cancellation of the registration of creation of a security right is without merit, and thus, it is just in the original judgment, and the plaintiff's appeal against this is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of appeal are borne by the plaintiff who has lost.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) expected from Jinology