In case where an auction has been conducted on part of the immovable property which is the object of the joint mortgage, the legal principles on subrogation by the person who has performed the obligation to secure another's property and subrogation by the subordinate mortgagee, and whether the claim for cancellation can be made on the ground that the obligation to secure another's property acquired by the person who has pledged the property has been extinguished (negative)

Where a lower mortgage is established on the real estate owned by a debtor which is the object of a joint mortgage and the real estate owned by a person who has pledged the real estate owned by a person who has pledged the property, the person who has pledged the property shall first sell the real estate owned by the person who has pledged the property, and at the same time acquire the right to indemnity against the debtor and at the same time obtain the first mortgage on the real estate owned by a person who has pledged the property under Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Code. In this case, the lower mortgagee on the real estate owned by a person who has pledged the property may obtain the first priority on the real estate transferred to the person who has pledged the property. This legal principle applies equally to the case where an auction is executed on the part of the real estate provided by a person who has pledged the property (in this case, the relationship between the person who has pledged the property secured by a person who has pledged the property shall be governed by Article 482 (2) 4 and 3 of the Civil Code). In this case, the person who has pledged the property acquired the property on another person's property first by subrogation and shall not be cancelled on the mortgage.

Articles 341, 342, 368(2), 370, 481, and 482 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Chang Chang Co., Ltd. and two others (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Jeong Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na46824 delivered on March 15, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where a lower mortgage is established on the real estate owned by a joint debtor and the real estate owned by a person who has pledged the property owned by a person who has pledged the property, the person who has pledged the property shall first sell the real estate owned by the person who has pledged the property, and if the person who has pledged the property has been repaid once by the delivery of the auction price, the person who has pledged the property shall acquire the right to indemnity against the debtor and, at the same time, the person who has pledged the property owned by the person who has pledged the property may obtain the first mortgage on the real estate acquired by subrogation under Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Code, and in such a case, the person who has pledged the property owned by the person who has pledged the property shall have the right to preferential repayment once as the first mortgage on the real estate acquired by the person who has pledged the property (in this case, the relationship between the person who has pledged the property secured by the person who has pledged the property shall be equally applied to the case where the auction has been executed on the part of the real estate provided by the person who has pledged the property.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as follows. The non-party, as a principal debtor, subrogated the non-party company to the non-party company in excess of his/her own share of liability after the auction of ○○ apartment as a principal debtor company's property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property trust property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property of the non-party, property property property property property property property property property property property of the non-party company property property property property property property property property property property property property property registration of the non-party property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in finding facts by violating the rules of evidence and neglecting judgment on evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the subrogation of the subordinate mortgagee in the subrogation and joint mortgage.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)