Whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the contract to establish the right to collateral after the right to collateral has been exercised.

Since the registration of establishment of a collateral security was cancelled and the registration of ownership was transferred to the defendant as the result of the execution of the right to collateral security, the defendant's auction and the payment of the debt was fully repaid, the claim for invalidation of the right to collateral security contract or the non-existence of the obligation is without any benefit to seek confirmation.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1758 delivered on February 10, 1970

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Bank of Korea

Busan District Court (64Ga2997)

Supreme Court Decision 66Na2001 Decided February 7, 1967

The original judgment shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that there is no joint and several liability between the defendant and the non-party 1 on October 14, 1963 as to the monetary loan contract of KRW 500,000 on December 7, 1962 and the money of KRW 500,000 on the date of December 21, 1962.

All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims shall be dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into two parts, one of which shall be the defendant's expense, and the other shall be the defendant's expense.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

(1) The mortgage agreement between the creditor, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of 2,00,000 won as to the real estate stated in the attached Table list is null and void. (2) On October 14, 1963, the due date for payment of 8,00,000 won between the defendant and the non-party 1, the principal debt of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 under the monetary loan agreement of 12.31 of the same year, and (b) on December 31 of the same year, the amount of 8,00,000 won for face value of 30,000,000 won for the monetary loan of 10,000,000 won for the amount of 30,000,000 won for the amount of 10,000,0000 won for the monetary loan between the defendant and the non-party 2, 196,000,000 won for the monetary loan of 14,016,05,016,06,01,06,04,0

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances (as of October 14, 1963, 587,563 won in the purchase price of the plaintiff and 587,563 won in the purchase price of the plaintiff and 57,627 won in the first and second instances, and the plaintiffs' claim for compensation for damages against the defendant in the amount of 57,627 won in the second and second instances).

First, we examine the claims stated in (4) of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs were led to the confession that they were jointly and severally guaranteed as stated in the above claims for the non-party 1 for the non-party 1, but the confession was revoked on February 25, 1969 at the 12th day of pleading after the remand, and the admission was denied, but there was no evidence that the confession was contrary to the truth and that the confession was caused by mistake, and thus the revocation of confession is not allowed.

Therefore, since it is difficult for the plaintiffs to purchase and sell the above real estate at the same time with the non-party 1 to 4 (the auction record of the non-party 1), Eul evidence 3 to 1, 2 (the non-party 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to whom the plaintiff 4 had no dispute over the above facts, and the non-party 1 to the non-party 6 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 to whom the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5 to whom the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the counter-party 1 to the defendant 2's.

Therefore, the plaintiff 1 purchased fertilizers, etc. of KRW 587,563 as above due to his fraud. Accordingly, the plaintiff 1 guaranteed the debt of KRW 800,000 in the amount of KRW 80,000 and provided the security without any special circumstances even though he borrowed money of KRW 80,00,00,00, and provided the joint guarantee to the debt of KRW 1.5 million in the amount of KRW 1,50,000 (in fact, the debt of the non-party 4 is actually the debt of the non-party 1) prior to almost one year, and even if the plaintiff 2 used part of the loan of the non-party 1 as above, he borrowed a security and made the plaintiff 1 act on behalf of the non-party 1 without any special circumstances, it shall be null and void since all of the plaintiffs' above debt of the non-party 2 and the joint guarantee to the non-party 1 is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to experience and rash.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking confirmation of non-existence of a bill can be justified without any need to examine the remainder of the claims of the plaintiffs. The following claims are made by the plaintiffs (1), (2), (3), (5) and the plaintiff's claims, and the plaintiff and the defendant's claims are examined as stated in (1), (2) and (2) as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the main obligation or joint and several surety contract as stated in (3), (5) were entered into, and the facts that the main obligation or joint and several surety contract was entered into, as stated in (1), (2) and (2) as stated in the above facts. Thus, even if the above facts were to be stated in the above facts of fraudulent act as alleged in (1), (2) and (2), it is invalid because the above facts were against public order and good morals, and even if so, it is invalid due to the plaintiff's mistake, and even if so, it is invalid due to the above facts stated in the sale contract as stated in the above.

Therefore, even if the plaintiffs obtain a judgment on the invalidity of the above-mentioned mortgage contract or the non-existence of the obligation, it cannot prevent the execution of the right to collateral security which has already been terminated, and it does not interfere with the plaintiffs from seeking legal relief such as a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration or a claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the above successful bid at the later date. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for the above-mentioned mortgage contract and the obligation should be dismissed as it does not have any profit to seek confirmation.

Therefore, since the original judgment is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 96, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Sap-ho (Presiding Judge) Lap-ho (Presiding Judge)