Whether it is the exercise of a security right to provide collateral again to a third party creditor as a collateral for security.

Since the exercise of security interest by a creditor in a security for transfer is a disposition of realization or an evaluation and settlement in accordance with an agreement between the parties concerned, it is not only the use or utilization of a security interest but also the exercise of a security interest to provide the collateral again to a third-party creditor.

Article 363 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kim Jin-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3297 delivered on April 7, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the lending and lending of money, etc., if the ownership or other property rights of an object of security for a claim are transferred to the creditor and the debtor fails to perform his/her obligation, the creditor shall be given preferential repayment of the object, but in the case of the debtor's performance of obligation, the creditor's exercise of security rights in the so-called security for transfer which is returned to the owner of the object is either realized into money or appraised and settled in accordance with the agreement between the parties concerned, and the creditor who is the secured party again provides the collateral to his/her creditor (third creditor) without such realization or evaluation is not entitled to use or utilize his/her security rights.

In this regard, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant offered the land owned by the plaintiff as a security for the debtor's claim against the non-party 1 and the land owned by the non-party 2 as a security for the defendant's debt against the non-party 3, the non-party 2,051 as a security for the defendant's debt against the non-party 3, the creditor of the non-party 2, while being provided with the non-party 1,051 as a security for the defendant's claim against the non-party 1, and the decision that the offering of security for the third-party creditor as a security for the transfer cannot be said to have been executed by the plaintiffs, and therefore the above non-party 1

2. According to the records, it is clear that the plaintiff merely stated that the defendant provided the security for transfer to his creditor and that it was the execution of the security right by the defendant, and that there was no argument about the contents or type of the security right to the third creditor or the execution of the security right. Therefore, it is not necessary for the court to make an explanation or examination on this issue because it is not necessary to do so.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)