Park Jae-il

President of the Korea Exchange Bank (Law Office of the Korea-U.S.A. Law Office, Attorney Yu-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Seoul High Court Decision 87Na2873 rendered on November 25, 1987 with respect to the case of the claim for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer, the Seoul High Court Decision 87Na2873, the same court rendered on November 25, 1987, shall be revoked. The defendant (the defendant; hereinafter the defendant) will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on January 31, 1987 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet against the plaintiff (the plaintiff; hereinafter the plaintiff), which was completed on January 31, 1987.

The plaintiff asserts that there are the following grounds for appeal in the judgment subject to a retrial.

In other words, although the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on the part of the defendant by providing each real estate listed in the attached list, which is owned by the plaintiff, as a collateral, for the non-party 1 corporation, the collateral obligation of the above collateral security was extinguished due to repayment, acceptance of the exempted obligation following the transfer of business, or replacement of the debtor, and thus the above collateral security became null and void. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the above real estate after the successful bid at the auction procedure conducted on the extinguished collateral security, the defendant recognized the fact that the registration of establishment of ownership transfer was completed on the part of the defendant, and the defendant responded only to the fact that the plaintiff's remaining assertion was proved by the successful bid. Therefore, if the plaintiff's assertion was not clearly disputed, it is deemed that the plaintiff was led to a confession because it did not dispute the plaintiff's assertion, and thus, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be pronounced without judgment on the merits.

On the other hand, a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act may not be a ground for retrial when the parties have asserted, or did not know, the ground for retrial by an appeal. According to the records, the plaintiff may not file a lawsuit for retrial on the ground that the grounds for appeal as to the judgment subject to retrial were alleged in the grounds for filing a petition for a final appeal as to the judgment subject to retrial. In other words, without examining whether there was a ground for appeal under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act as alleged by the plaintiff in the judgment subject to retrial, the plaintiff's lawsuit for retrial of this case shall be dismissed by illegality and without examining whether there was a ground for appeal under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil

Judges Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)