Limit of the amount of claims secured by the secured property by the right to collateral security.

If a person who has pledged the right to collateral security pays only the maximum amount of the claim stipulated in Article 357 of the Civil Act, the person who has pledged the right to collateral security may request the cancellation of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage and shall not be obliged to repay

Article 357 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na789 delivered on May 21, 1974

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on its reasoning, the court below dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the forest of this case owned by the Plaintiff on December 24, 1971, since the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a collateral security right with the maximum amount of KRW 1,00,000,00,000 to secure the Nonparty’s obligation against the Defendant, and then the Nonparty did not repay the said obligation, the Defendant deposited the said maximum debt amount of KRW 1,00,000,000 and the auction expenses up to that time, and the said principal and interest accrued after June 3, 1972 (as a result of the Defendant’s claim, the interest accrued up to June 3, 1973) with the remainder of the maximum debt amount of KRW 421,242,00 with the remainder of the auction expenses, as long as the Nonparty did not reimburse the Nonparty’s obligation against the Defendant.

2. However, the scope of the claim secured by the right to collateral security shall be limited to the maximum debt amount set forth in the right to collateral security contract among the claims finalized during the period of liquidation, and the amount exceeding the maximum debt amount shall not be secured, and the meaning of the maximum debt amount to be secured under Article 357 of the Civil Act shall be interpreted as the same contents. (See Supreme Court Decision 71Da26 delivered on April 6, 1971, Supreme Court Decision 71Ma251 delivered on May 15, 1971, and Supreme Court Decision 71Ma251 delivered on May 71, 197, and Supreme Court Decision 71Ma251 delivered on May 15, 197). Accordingly, the court below erred by erroneous interpretation of the law, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss the above contents. (The judgment of the court below is the same as in accordance with the Supreme Court Order 71Ma1151 delivered on January 26, 1972.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)