Whether the secured claim of provisional registration of security is limited to the purchase price stated in the sales promise, which is a certificate of cause for provisional registration (negative)

The purchase price on the purchase promise, which is a document of cause of provisional registration, is merely stated in the provisional registration procedure's convenience, the secured claim of provisional registration is not limited to its limit, and the scope of secured claim is determined according to the terms of the agreement of the parties

Article 3 of the Provisional Registration Security Act, Article 360 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2320 Delivered on June 9, 1981

Kim Tae-il

Kim Jong-J (Attorney Lee Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 95Na16002, 16019 delivered on July 31, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, it is acceptable that the court below recognized that the secured debt of the provisional registration of this case was 15,000,000 won borrowed from the plaintiff after the provisional registration of this case, and that the above Yang school, the first school, the second school, the first school, and the second school, the second school, and the second school, and the second school, the second school, and the second school, and the second school, the second school, the second school, the second school, and the second school, the second school, and the second school, the second school, and the second school of this case were 15,00 won borrowed from the plaintiff, and there

In addition, the purchase price on the pre-contract for sale, which is a document evidencing the cause of provisional registration, is merely stated in the provisional registration procedure, and the secured debt on provisional registration is not limited to its limit, and the scope of secured debt is determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2320, Jun. 9, 1981). Thus, as determined by the court below, if the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the Defendant only) offered the real estate of this case to the Plaintiff through the pre-sale area, the agent of the pre-sale area, and through the pre-sale area, the pre-sale area of the pre-sale area of the above real estate, and the above pre-sale area of the pre-sale area of the above real estate to be borne in the future against the Plaintiff, the above pre-sale amount of KRW 40 million,000,000 as well as KRW 15,000,000,000,000 as well as KRW 15,000,0.

In conclusion, the assertion is not accepted because it is merely a wooden part of the judgment of the court below on the premise of facts different from the facts established by the court below, or it is not merely a wooden part of the judgment of the court below, which is contrary to the facts established by the court below.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)