[1] The criteria for determining the reasonableness of security and the claimant for extinguishment of security in the claim for extinguishment of right of retention by the offer of security

[2] The case holding that the error in calculating the amount of damages is a ground for correcting the judgment and does not constitute a ground for reversing the judgment below

[1] Whether the security to be provided under Article 327 of the Civil Code is reasonable or not shall be determined by taking into consideration the fact that the value of the security is considerable as the security of the claim and does not decrease the ability of the security in the form of the custody. If the price of the custody is excessive compared to the amount of the claim, it shall be sufficient if the security has been provided with the value of the claim. Meanwhile, the debtor or the owner of the custody may express his/her intent to claim the extinction of the lien as long as the security has been provided.

[2] In calculating the amount of damages due to possession without title, the court below erred in calculating the amount of damages on July 25th and the amount of damages on July 26th, and thereby there is a difference in calculating the amount of damages, such errors by the court below shall be corrected by the method of correction of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed.

[1] Article 327 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 197 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 78Da2107 delivered on February 13, 197 (Publication in Official Gazette) (Gong1987, 1562 delivered on September 8, 1987), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2472 delivered on August 18, 1992 (Gong192, 2782)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na77835 delivered on August 23, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. Each of the "4,973,542 won" in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below and Section 7 of the judgment of the court below, "No. 4,952,468 won," and "No. 7 months and 26 days" in Section 7 shall be corrected to "No. 25 months

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

Whether the security to be provided under Article 327 of the Civil Act is reasonable or not shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the fact that the value of the security is considerable as the security of the claim, and that the value of the security does not decrease the ability of the security in the form of the security, and if the value of the custody is excessive compared to the amount of the claim, it shall be sufficient to provide the security with a value equivalent to the amount of the claim. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the debtor or the owner of the custody of the person who has an interest in the thing in question may declare the

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant agreed that the above 10-household housing was to be paid to 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,00 won for 10,000 won for 30,00 won for 10,000 won for 9,00 won for 10,000 won for 197.

As such, considering the fact that the sum of appraisal values of multi-household houses which are the object of the right to collateral security, paid by Nonparty 1 to the Defendant on June 23, 1997, the aggregate of appraisal values of multi-household houses which are the object of the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security (hereinafter “multi-household houses”) and the interest for arrears from June 19, 197 to June 23, 1997, and the Defendant received full payment of the right to collateral security from the successful bid price of six households among multi-household houses, it is reasonable to deem that the right to collateral security granted by Nonparty 1, the debtor, was a considerable security equivalent to the amount of the right to collateral security at the time of the right to collateral security, even if considering the circumstances as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 401 of multi-household houses (hereinafter “multihousehold houses of this case”) from June 19, 200 to June 23, 2000.

The recognition and judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the time of expiration of the right of retention under Article 327 of the Civil Act.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. On the third ground for appeal

In calculating the amount of damages due to the possession without title to the multi-household housing in this case, the court below erred in calculating the amount of seven months and twenty-five days from June 9, 2000 to February 2, 2001 (the date of multi-household housing in this case was organized as the fact that there was no dispute between the parties on February 2, 2001) that was admitted by the court below, and even if there is a difference in the amount of damages due to this, the court below's error is corrected by the method of correction of the judgment and the judgment of the court below is not the reason for reversal (see Supreme Court Decisions 78Da2107, Feb. 13, 197; 87Meu809, 810, 811, Sept. 8, 1987).

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. Since the judgment of the court below is erroneous, each of the "4,973,542 won" in paragraphs (1) and 7 of the judgment of the court below shall be revised by '4,952,468 won', and "7th month 26th day of the judgment of the court below" in '7th month 25th day of the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)