(a) Prescription for demanding the debtor to cancel his/her ownership transfer registration of collateral in the transfer for security;

(b) Whether the debtor's right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the object of security for transfer is subject to extinctive prescription;

A. If the creditor has made a provisional registration on the real estate owned by the debtor on his own in the course of lending money to the debtor but fails to repay the above money, if the debtor has made a principal registration on the basis of the above provisional registration to the creditor in accordance with the telephone-based agreement to bring a lawsuit to enforce the principal registration procedure based on the above provisional registration, the transfer of ownership is registered as an object of transfer for security in a limited sense that the procedure for settlement is established as a means to enforce the security right to the obligation, and even after the expiration of the period for payment of the obligation, the debtor can claim the cancellation of the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration and the provisional registration until the creditor pays the obligation at any time before the creditor makes settlement by exercising the security right.

B. In the transfer for security, provisional registration of the debtor's target real estate concerned and the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration is not subject to extinctive prescription.

(a) Article 372 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Meu375 Decided October 26, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 85Na3068 delivered on November 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 8, 1971, the plaintiff borrowed 600,000 won from the defendant with the interest rate of 6% per month, and on October 8 of the same year with the maturity of payment, there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the real estate in this case, provisional registration for preserving the right to request ownership transfer and the transfer of ownership are made. In full view of the evidence adopted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff borrowed the above money from the defendant and made provisional registration pursuant to a pre-sale in the defendant, and the plaintiff received 708,000 won from the plaintiff until October 8 of the same year and performed the procedure for cancellation registration of the above provisional registration at the same time. If the plaintiff did not pay the above money to the defendant by the above date, the court below rejected the registration of the transfer of the real estate in this case as a pre-sale or pre-sale after the settlement of the principal and interest on the real estate in this case. However, the court below rejected the registration of the principal and interest of the defendant in this case by the aforementioned evidence.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, omission of judgment, lack of reasoning, etc.

In addition, in the above facts, the ownership transfer registration made before the defendant was made as a means to exercise the security right for the obligation, and it was made for the purpose of a transfer for security within the weak meaning that is scheduled to settle the obligation, and even after the time limit for payment for the obligation has expired, even after the time limit for payment for the obligation has expired, the debtor can at any time repay his obligation and seek cancellation of the principal registration based on the provisional registration and provisional registration (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da375 delivered on October 26, 1982). In the same regard, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's claim for provisional registration and ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case did not go against the extinctive prescription and did not constitute a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of the right of lawsuit, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, omission of judgment, lack of reason, inconsistency with the reason, incomplete deliberation, etc.

In addition, with regard to the defendant's assertion that the money in this case is subject to extinctive prescription due to the right to rescission or the right to rescission, the right to claim restitution due to the exercise of the right to rescission, the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer, or the right to claim the registration of cancellation, which is concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the claim in this case can be deemed to include the conclusion that the right and duty relationship based on the previous promise to purchase and sell, which is a legal relation, cannot be accepted in this case, and therefore, there is no error of law

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)