A contract containing an agreement of pledge and an agreement of transfer of ownership subject to suspension, and Article 104 of the Civil Act

The contract entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant Gap was agreed to completely transfer the ownership of each real estate to the defendant Gap in the event that the plaintiffs are unable to pay the check money by the agreed deadline and the agreement that the plaintiffs will offer the real estate as security for the check money to the defendant Gap, but the latter agreement was concluded to allow the defendant Gap to acquire the ownership of each of the above real estate amounting to 2,15,000 won at the market price in order to pay the check money in an imminent situation immediately before the plaintiff was detained. Thus, it is null and void as a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness without any defect that the electronic security agreement is remarkably unfair. However, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant Gap is valid to the extent that the above security right is indicated. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant Gap is entirely transferred in the external relationship. Thus, the defendant Eul who purchased the real estate from the defendant Gap and passed the registration of transfer of ownership is valid.

Article 104 of the Civil Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da700 Delivered on December 27, 1962

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and two others

Busan District Court Decision 65Na713 delivered on February 24, 1967, Busan High Court Decision 65Na713 delivered on February 24, 1967

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The first ground for appeal by the plaintiff et al. is examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the ownership of each of the real estate was acquired by Defendant 2 for the payment of the check debt amounting to KRW 215,00,000 at the market price before and after the decision, and concluded between the plaintiffs and Defendant 2 by each letter of evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, No. 1964, Jul. 3, 1964; the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 was made that the plaintiffs would transfer the ownership of each of the real estate to the defendant 2, if the plaintiffs were unable to pay the check money by the 13th day of the same month; however, the latter agreement was insufficient before and after the decision was made; however, the court below determined that the ownership transfer registration of the real estate was null and void as a juristic act, or the agreement between the defendant 2, and that the ownership transfer registration cannot be deemed null and void under the name of the defendant 2, and thus, the ownership transfer registration cannot be deemed null and void.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, since each evidence cited by the court below was examined by the records and it was not impossible to find facts such as the health team and the original edition, there is no ground for the court below to criticize the determination of evidence and the fact-finding which was lawfully conducted by the court below, based on the premise that the court below assessed the evidence differently from this part of the court below, and evidence No. 3-3 (the examination protocol of witness examination of Jeon Jong-tae is not a protocol of examination and the theory of lawsuit against Jeon-tae, but a protocol of witness examination of Kim Tae-tae is not a protocol of witness examination of Jeon-tae, and it is not a evidence No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2 of the court below, and the part of the evidence No. 3 of the evidence No. 3 of the plaintiff Kim Jong-young, which corresponds to the plaintiff's opinion, should not be acknowledged that the plaintiff Kim Jong-young arbitrarily disposed of each real estate without the plaintiff Kim-Nam's permission. Thus, even if the court below did not make any judgment on the evidence No. 3-3 of this case, it did not affect the conclusion.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu