Whether cancellation of registration for the security of claims can be claimed by the repayment and reimbursement of the secured claim

Even if the principal registration of transfer of ownership is outside the effect of the security of claims, the plaintiff may seek cancellation on the ground that the secured obligation is extinguished after the secured obligation has been repaid to the defendant, but it cannot be claimed in exchange for the repayment of the secured obligation.

Article 536 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Da104 Decided May 30, 1957 (Supreme Court Decision 5330DaKad 5330, Supreme Court Decision 372(4)372 Decided June 29, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1937Da869 Decided June 29, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 65Da869 Decided June 29, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 193Da1173 Decided September 30, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 69Da1173 Decided September 30, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 793Dah 793, Supreme Court Decision 17Da158, Decision 536(28) and Decision 441 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

An intervenor;

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (70 Ghana1418)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the intervenor and the defendant

The parts arising between them shall be borne by the assistant intervenor.

The Defendant, as the Daegu-si District Court No. 56841, Nov. 21, 1969, received on Nov. 21, 1969, in Daegu-si 853-8 Daegu-dong 895, the Plaintiff will implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

The defendant confirms that the claim against the plaintiff is one million won.

The defendant shall receive 1 million won from the plaintiff, and the Daegu District Court No. 46177 of September 24, 1969 of the above real estate was received on September 22, 1969 of the same year by the Daegu District Court No. 4617 of the above real estate, and the provisional registration of the right to claim and preserve the transfer of ownership due to the promise for payment in substitutes was received on September 24, 1969 of the same court No. 46178 of the above real estate, and the procedure for the cancellation of the registration

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

As a preliminary claim, the defendant shall pay 16,925,000 won to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (the modification of the purport of the claim, including the preliminary claim at the trial)

Judgment identical with the statement in the purport of the claim, other than where the original judgment is revoked;

In light of the above legal principles as to the non-party 1's claim and the non-party 1's assertion that the non-party 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for the above 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for the cancellation of the above 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim that the non-party 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for the above 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for the cancellation of the above 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim that the non-party 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for the above 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for the cancellation of the above 50,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for the cancellation of the above 90,000 won and the non-party 1's claim for transfer.

The plaintiff's attorney is the conjunctive assertion again, and the plaintiff's representative sought compensation of KRW 16,925,00,00 calculated by deducting the principal and interest of the defendant's claim from KRW 22,375,000 at the market price of this case at the time of November 1, 1969 (Seoul 25,000 won x 895 square) from the defendant's 5,450,000 won. However, except the evidence in front of the party members' reliance on the defendant's violation of the agreement, the above claim for damages based on the premise that the plaintiff had passed the principal registration of the land of this case due to the violation of the agreement cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's objection claims and preliminary claims shall be dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court that forms the above conclusion is just and there is no ground for the plaintiff's appeal, so it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 89, 94, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)