(a) Whether the right to request settlement of accounts to an obligor in the transfer of security established prior to the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act is recognized;

B. In the case of the above paragraph (a), the starting point of counting extinctive prescription for the right to claim settlement of security holders

A. With respect to the transfer for security established prior to the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act, if the maturity period for the obligation is the same, the creditor shall return to the debtor the remainder after deducting the principal and interest, etc. of the secured real estate from the value of the secured real estate, acquire ownership of the secured real estate, dispose of the secured real estate, and appropriate the remainder from the proceeds of sale to pay the principal and interest of the secured real estate, and return the balance to the debtor. However, this does not mean that the creditor has a right granted to the creditor to exercise the security right, and the debtor has a right to demand an active settlement as above, and the debtor shall not have a right to demand the settlement as mentioned above, even after the maturity period has expired, at any time before the creditor exercises the security right, and may claim a cancellation of the provisional registration of the secured object and the principal registration based on it, and the debtor may not claim a payment of the settlement amount after exercising the security right without paying the creditor's obligation, rather than by cancelling the registration by the repayment of the obligation. Even if such demand is required, this does not mean to urge

B. Since a claim for settlement of money by the person who created the security for transfer can be exercised only when the secured real estate should be realized in the case of settlement of disposal, the right to claim settlement of settlement proceeds will proceed at the time of realization of the secured real estate.

Article 372 of the Civil Act / [Transfer for Security] Article 166 (1) of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Da15488 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2237)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Kang Jung-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na50296 delivered on July 29, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the facts established by the court below, the land of this case is originally owned by the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs borrowed 60,000,000 won from the defendant on October 25, 1979, the interest rate of 4%, and the due date of payment on May 25, 1980, the right to claim ownership transfer shall be registered in the name of the defendant as a security of this obligation. "the defendant shall receive 67,200,000 won from the plaintiffs to May 25, 1980 and repay 67,20,000 won to the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs fail to pay the above money to the defendant by the above date, it shall be done for the purpose of the provisional registration based on provisional registration and delivered the land of this case to the defendant for the execution of the security right, the defendant shall be deemed to have sold the land of this case for the purpose of this case's provisional registration from 0 years to 10 years to 10 years to 1981.

2. As in the instant case, in the case of transfer for security within the weak meaning established prior to the enforcement of the Provisional Registration Security Act (No. 3681, Dec. 30, 1983), the obligee may return the remainder after deducting the principal and interest of the secured real estate from the value of the secured real estate if the maturity period for the obligation expires, and acquire the ownership of the secured real estate. (Adjustment for Reversion), and dispose of the secured real estate, and appropriate the remainder from the proceeds of sale to pay the principal and interest of the claim, and return the remainder to the obligor. However, it shall not be deemed that the obligee has the right granted to the obligee in order to exercise the security right and the obligor has the right

In such a case, even after the due date has expired, the debtor can at any time repay his/her obligation and seek cancellation of provisional registration of the object of security and the principal registration based thereon, and the debtor cannot claim the payment of the settlement amount after exercising his/her security right without paying his/her obligation to the creditor, rather than cancellation of the registration of the object of security, and even if such demand is made, it is only the meaning of demanding the implementation of the settlement procedure.

Therefore, in the case of settlement of accounts for disposal, it is possible to exercise the right only when the secured real estate should be realized (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da15488 delivered on July 26, 1991). Therefore, the right to claim settlement of accounts should be deemed to run extinctive prescription at the time of realization of the secured real estate.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the defendant's disposal of the land of this case to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as of April 26, 1989 as the starting point of the statute of limitations and that the right to claim the settlement of this case has not been extinguished by prescription is correct, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the security of provisional registration,

3. The issue is that, if the obligee does not dispose of the secured real estate, the obligee can no longer file a claim for the settlement procedures at any time, and the obligee may not perform the settlement procedures at any time, and the obligee cannot escape from the obligation to settle the secured real estate at the time of disposal of the object even after a long period of time. However, the secured claim for the security by means of transfer is also subject to extinctive prescription, and when the secured claim is extinguished by prescription, the obligor can file a claim for the cancellation of the registration performed as the object of the security. Thus, even if the obligor does not recognize the right to claim settlement as above, the obligee is not able to perform the settlement procedures at any time, unless there are special circumstances, and the obligor is able to reimburse the principal and interest of the secured real estate when the secured real estate exceeds the principal and interest of the claim, and thus this unreasonable result does not arise.

5. In addition, the court below's decision to the effect that the disposition of the court below which did not recognize the disposition of attribution in the transfer for security within a weak meaning is improper, but the court below's decision to the effect that the transfer for security within a weak meaning is neither mentioned only in the disposition of this case, nor recognized only the disposition of transfer for security, nor recognized the disposition of transfer for security, nor recognized the disposition of attribution.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)