Performance of secured claims and simultaneous performance relationship with delivery of documents required for cancellation of registration of creation of a collateral, and cancellation of registration of creation of a collateral;

If the obligor and the owner of a claim secured by a right to collateral security, as well as the owner of the claim, have delivered all the documents to be extinguished when the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security was deposited for payment, the said deposit shall not have the effect of payment, unless

Appellant 1 et al.

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 64Ra431 delivered on March 2, 1965

Re-appellant’s re-appeal No. 3

Unless otherwise stipulated, it is interpreted that the debtor and the owner of the secured real estate cannot request the delivery of documents required for the registration of the establishment and cancellation of the secured claim in exchange for the repayment of the secured claim unless otherwise stipulated, the record shows that the deposit of April 22, 1964 against the re-appellant 1 of the non-applicant 1 who is not the applicant for the establishment of the right to collateral security shall be the counter-payment of all documents required for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security. In other words, the above deposit of this case shall not be valid unless there is a special agreement for simultaneous performance.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the above deposit has the effect of the repayment of the secured debt as well as the decision of the court of first instance which interpreted the same purport shall not be unlawful, and the arguments are justified.

Therefore, without any need to wait for the determination on the remaining arguments, the original decision cannot be reversed, and it is sufficient to directly decide on the original decision, and as seen earlier, the deposit of this case as seen above is deemed to continue to exist as the right to collateral security has no effect of repayment. Therefore, the objection raised on the premise that the said right to collateral security exists, and thus, the decision of the first instance is revoked, and the objection raised on the premise that the said right to collateral security exists, is dismissed.

Justices Cho Woo-hwan (Presiding Justice)