Exercising the right of indemnity where the third party purchaser of the mortgaged object has subrogated;

The plaintiff is a third acquisitor who has a legitimate interest in the repayment of the debt of the non-party Gap, and due to the above repayment, the above repayment of the debt to the above party Gap can be claimed within the limit of the amount of the debt corresponding to the value of each of the two real estate. The defendant can subrogate the defendant's right to indemnity within the limit of the amount of the right to indemnity. Thus, the defendant is obligated to transfer the right to collateral on each of the above real estate to the plaintiff within the limit of the amount of the right to indemnity in proportion to the value of each of the above real estate.

Articles 482 and 484 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1419 delivered on December 10, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10859Da10859 delivered on December 10, 197, Supreme Court Decision 223No. 366 delivered on October 15, 200, Supreme Court Gazette 504No8218 delivered on December 10, 197)

Plaintiff

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Daegu District Court (72 Gohap530) in the first instance

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant against the plaintiff

On January 5, 1970, Daegu District Court's receipt 3 of the Seogu District Court on the real estate stated in the annex 1, 1970 on the attached list No. 1, 190,515, and 938,383, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1 among the real estate held by the debtor non-party 1, the amount of secured claims shall be KRW 6,40,00,00, and the amount of secured claims shall be KRW 990,515, and the amount of secured claims shall be KRW 938,383, with regard to the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 1, 2, 1970

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 1 to 11-1 and 11, which are not disputed in the establishment, the defendant bank entered in the separate list Nos. 1 and 2 of the non-party 2 on Dec. 30, 1969, and entered in the third list of the non-party 1's possession as joint collateral, and entered into a mortgage contract with the non-party 1 as the debtor, with the maximum debt amount of 6,400,000 won as to the above 1,2's real estate entered in the third list as stated in the purport of the claim No. 1 and 11, and the plaintiff purchased the above 3's real estate from the non-party 1 on Sep. 21, 1970 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of Dec. 21, 1970, the defendant bank can recognize that it purchased the above 3's real estate from the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 as to the non-party 1's obligation to the defendant 1 and the creditor 15.

Thus, the plaintiff is a third acquisitor of the mortgaged object which has a legitimate interest in repaying the debt of the non-party 1, and the above non-party 2 and 3, who is the debtor due to the above repayment, can claim against the non-party 2 and 3, within the limit of the amount of the debt corresponding to the value of each real estate. Thus, the plaintiff can subrogate the defendant's right within the limit of the right of indemnity.

The defendant is obligated to transfer the right to collateral security to the plaintiff within the scope of the right of indemnity in proportion to the above value of each real estate and deliver the certificate of right to the above claim.

However, the defendant's attorney had already been paid the above amount of money by exercising the right of reimbursement against the non-party 1 who is the debtor. Thus, the plaintiff's exercise of the right of subrogation is unjust, but there are no data to recognize this point, and the above assertion by the defendant's attorney is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, the value of each of the real estate in this case at the time of repayment is KRW 1,292,00, KRW 1,224,000 for the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list, KRW 5,612,00 for the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 list, and KRW 5,612,00 for the real estate listed in the attached Table 3 list is for the defendant. Thus, according to the above value ratio, the defendant is for the person who is the person to whom the amount of the secured claim in this case is divided by KRW 6,231,351 for the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list, KRW 90,515 for the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list ( KRW 1,292,000 for the real estate, KRW 1,292,292,000 +6,612,000 for the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list x KRW 38,204,2010 for each of the bill.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection against the defendant is justified and accepted. Accordingly, the original judgment is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jong-ro (Presiding Judge)