The validity of a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of real estate provided as a debt security without discharging the secured debt;

Where the debtor has deposited only a part of the secured obligation, and then registered a provisional disposition with respect to the real estate provided as security, the secured obligation is not extinguished, and the provisional disposition has no effect of preventing the act of disposal as an exercise of security right to the real estate by the creditor.

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da1271, 1272 Decided October 31, 1972 (Article 103(39) of the Civil Act, Article 216(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 719(13) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 719(13), Article 71270 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 203(80) of the Civil Procedure Act

Oral Hohs

Hag Jin Jina

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as of April 7, 1983, No. 31010 received on April 7, 1983 and No. 37323 received on April 22, 1983 of the same year against the plaintiff as to the 58 large 60 square meters in Busan Dong-dong 189-dong, Busan Dong-dong (hereinafter the real estate of this case).

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff shall pay the above 10, 10, 30, 500 won for the above 10, 50, 100, 200, 200, 30,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 40,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 5,00 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 10,000,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 5,00 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 20,00 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 5,00 won for the above 10,000 won.

On or after May 16, 1983, the registration of transfer of ownership which was made under the name of the defendant for sale on or after May 19, 1983 by the defendant for the provisional disposition of the previous real estate was in violation of the above provisional disposition. The plaintiff tried to repay part of the principal and interest of the above loan to the defendant on May 14, 1983, but on or after May 14, 1983, the defendant deposited 12,50,000 won as part of the interest and principal until the above loan was received, and the above sale of the above real estate was in violation of the above provisional disposition of the above provisional disposition of the transfer of ownership which was made by the defendant on or after May 16, 1983. The above sale of the above real estate was in violation of the above provisional disposition of the above provisional disposition of the transfer of ownership, and the above sale of the above real estate was in violation of the above 3rd 3rd 10,000 won and the above 3rd 10,000 won, respectively.

However, it is obvious that the plaintiff himself has asserted that he deposited only part of the loan principal and interest of the previous real estate before the time the transfer registration was made to the above Gabbbol. Thus, even after the registration of the above provisional injunction by the plaintiff, the above provisional injunction against the defendant was not completely extinguished until the time of the above provisional injunction registration and the transfer of this real estate. Therefore, the above provisional injunction by the plaintiff's name does not have the effect of preventing the act of disposal as the execution of security right (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da1271, 1272, Oct. 31, 1972). Thus, the defendant's act of transferring the real estate is legitimate as the execution of security right.

Accordingly, since the settlement of this issue remains between the plaintiff and the defendant due to the defendant's act of disposing of this real estate, even if he purchased this real estate, and thereafter leased this real estate to another person, the plaintiff cannot be said to have any rights and duties concerning the above rent. In addition, the plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the above registration in the name of the defendant on the condition that the principal and interest of the secured debt remaining after the defendant's transfer of this real estate should not be paid. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Judges' inducement (Presiding Judge) Egradical leap