(1) such payment shall have the effect of such payment, and if not, any other

Unless otherwise expressly stipulated, the obligor and the owner of the claim secured by the right to collateral security cannot request the delivery of the documents required for the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the right to collateral security in exchange for the repayment of the claim. Thus, the payment deposit made in return for delivery of the aforementioned documents has no effect.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

[Re-Appellant]

Busan District Court Order 66Ra86 dated May 26, 1966

The original decision is reversed, and

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked.

The objection against the decision to commence the voluntary auction in this case shall be dismissed.

The second ground of re-appeal No. 6

It is interpreted that it is not possible for the owner of a bond secured by a false mortgage to request the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in exchange for the repayment of the debt secured by the mortgage, unless otherwise expressly stipulated. According to the records, it is evident that the deposit of the other party to the loan is to be paid in return for the delivery of the documents to the re-appellant on February 3, 1966, including non-applicant 2, non-applicant 3, non-applicant 4, non-applicant 5, non-applicant 6, non-applicant 7, and non-applicant 2, non-applicant 1, non-applicant 2, non-applicant 3, non-applicant 4, non-applicant 5, non-applicant 6, and non-applicant 7.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the above deposit has the effect of the repayment of the secured debt as well as the decision of the court of first instance which interpreted the same purport shall not be unlawful, and the argument is reasonable.

Therefore, without any need to wait for the determination of the remaining arguments, the original decision shall not be reversed, and as seen above, it is sufficient to directly judge the original decision, and as seen above, the deposit of this case shall not have the effect of repayment and shall be deemed to continue to exist effectively. Thus, the objection raised on the premise that the same right to collateral security exists, which is the premise that the same right to collateral security exists. Therefore, the first instance decision shall be revoked, and the objection shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court