In case of a provisional registration security by the reservation for the transfer of property rights, if the market price at the time of the reservation does not reach the amount of the secured obligation, the essential part of the notification of the appraised value of the liquidation amount under Article 3 of the Provisional Registration Security Act (negative)

The Provisional Registration Security Act applies only when the value of the property at the time of the reservation exceeds the sum of the borrowed amount and the interest attached thereto with respect to provisional registration based on the reservation for transfer of property rights. Therefore, if the market price at the time of the reservation for provisional registration security real estate falls short of the amount of the secured obligation, there is no room to notify the appraised value of the liquidation amount under Article 3 of the same Act.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na39806 delivered on July 19, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, that the plaintiff made a provisional registration on the real estate of this case (1), (2) the provisional registration on the preservation of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed with respect to the real estate of this case, and if the above secured obligation is not repaid by June 30, 1987, the plaintiff made an agreement on the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership as a substitute payment protocol with respect to the whole real estate of this case including (3) real estate at the time of the decision at the time. The court below recognized the fact that there was an interest agreement between the non-party company and the defendants on the above secured obligation of 974,490,000 won as interest rate of 5% per annum, which is not the above agreement, and it is apparent in the plaintiff's own assertion that the payment of interest was made at the legal interest rate of 5% per annum, which is not a legitimate deposit. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the secured obligation of this case is groundless is groundless.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In order for the Defendants to make a principal registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate, the court below completed the principal registration of transfer of ownership without notifying the Plaintiff of the appraised amount of liquidation money based on the value of the instant real estate as of June 30, 1987, which was liquidated under Article 3(1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act. However, the Provisional Registration Security Act, without such notification, applies only to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the principal registration of transfer of ownership is null and void if the value of the said property as of the time of the reservation exceeds the sum of the borrowed amount and the interest attached thereto (see Article 1 of the same Act). Thus, in this case where the market price at the time of the reservation of the instant real estate is 566,647,400 won, and the principal amount of the secured debt is less than 702,00,000 won, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The Provisional Registration Security Act applies only to cases where the value of the property at the time of the reservation exceeds the sum of the borrowed amount and the interest accrued therefrom with respect to the provisional registration based on the pre-contract for the transfer of property rights (see Article 1 of the same Act). As duly determined by the court below, in this case where the market price at the time of the reservation for the real estate secured by provisional registration of this case does not exceed KRW 566,647,40,00, which is the amount of the secured debt amount, as the market price at the time of the reservation for the real estate secured by provisional registration of this case is less than KRW 702,00,000, which is the amount of the secured debt, there is no room for notifying the appraised value of the liquidation amount under Article 3 of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2125,125, 2132 (Counterclaim) delivered on January 23, 190). The judgment below is just and there

3. We examine the third ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in this case where the market price of the real estate at the time of the promise to sell and purchase does not reach the principal and interest of the secured obligation, the above promise to sell and purchase does not violate the provisions of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act and is valid ( therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that this is null and void in violation of the provisions of Article 339 of the Civil Act is groundless) and judged as to the argument on Article 339 of the Civil Act as to the prohibition of the contract of pledge on movable property, and there is no argument that the judgment of the court below

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)