(a) Effect of partial repayment or deposit of the obligation;

B. Whether a cancellation of provisional registration made with a security for claims is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the repayment of the secured obligation (negative)

A. The provision of partial performance of an obligation cannot be deemed to be a provision of performance according to the principal place of the obligation, and the provision of performance cannot take effect, and thus, it cannot take effect even if part of the obligation was deposited.

(b) If it is intended to require the transfer of ownership in the name of the creditor, or the cancellation of the provisional registration for the preservation of such claim, made for the purpose of securing the obligation, the obligation shall be discharged first and may not be claimed for cancellation in exchange for the repayment of the obligation

(a) Articles 460 and 487(b) of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu161 delivered on November 22, 1983

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Tae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na3802 delivered on March 21, 1984

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's obligation secured by the provisional registration of this case as of July 1, 1983 remains as principal amounting to KRW 1,213,809, but on July 1, 1983, the plaintiff deposited KRW 510,00 on the ground that the defendant refused to accept the above loan payment, and thus, the plaintiff deposited KRW 1,213,80,000 on the ground that he did not receive the above loan payment, the court below determined that the above amount was secured by the provisional registration of this case from January 21, 1983 to July 1, 1983 after deducting the above amount of KRW 510,00,000,000 from the above amount of KRW 1,240,746 deducted from the above amount of interest rate of KRW 730,746,000,000 from the above provisional registration of this case, and that the defendant was obligated to pay the above amount of interest rate of KRW 730,74663.

However, the offering of part of the debt cannot be deemed as the offering of performance according to the principal place of the debt, and thus, it cannot be effective. Thus, even according to the original statement of the court below itself, the defendant's offering of performance which the defendant refused to accept is not revealed at all when, how and how the defendant's offering of performance was, and on this ground, deposited a deposit of 510,000 won on this ground. Thus, it cannot be deemed as the performance according to the principal place of the debt because it is merely a partial repayment of the debt, and it cannot be deemed as the validity of the repayment. Thus, in a case where the provisional registration of transfer of ownership or provisional registration of preservation of the creditor's claim has been made for the purpose of the security of the debt, it is not possible to first repay the debt and seek cancellation of the provisional registration in exchange for the repayment of the secured debt. Thus, the court below's order of cancellation registration of provisional registration of this case is not inconsistent with the legal principles on the repayment of debt and provisional registration of this case. Therefore, there is no error in the appeal.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)