beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On January 11, 2013, regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is owned by the Plaintiff, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage was completed on January 11, 2013, with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and C, which is the title holder of the said establishment registration, will proceed with the voluntary auction procedure of the instant real estate as the Defendant’s performance. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 144,00,000,000 as well as damages for delay.
B. In accordance with Article 370 of the Civil Act, Article 341 of the same Act applies mutatis mutandis to a mortgage. Article 341 of the same Act provides that a mortgagee who has pledged another person's debt shall obtain the right to indemnity against the debtor when he/she has repaid his/her debt or has lost the ownership of the mortgaged property due to the execution of the mortgage. The requirements for the right to indemnity against the debtor are different from those of the guarantor. The secured debt is an act of establishing a security right on behalf of the debtor for the debtor, and the secured debt is an act of establishing a security right on behalf of the debtor and is not entrusted with the work of performing the obligation on behalf of the debtor. Therefore, the secured debt is not limited to the secured debt, and the scope of the right to indemnity against the debtor is not limited to the creditor, unless there are special circumstances. In principle, it is reasonable to interpret Article 442 of the Civil Act on the prior right to indemnity of the entrusted guarantor as a matter of principle that the surety cannot exercise the right to indemnity in advance
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da19802, 19819, Jul. 23, 2009). Therefore, the Defendant, who is a surety, pays the advance reimbursement to the Plaintiff, who is a surety, as the obligor,.