Whether or not a request for cancellation of the registration was made on the condition of the repayment of the remaining obligation during the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on the collateral, and whether or not the benefit to be claimed in advance as a future performance action.

In the event that the plaintiff filed a claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, etc. of the real estate offered as security by means of transfer on the ground that the plaintiff repaid or deposited the amount claimed to be the principal and interest, but it is found that there is any remaining obligation without extinguishing the full amount due to the opinion on the method of satisfaction of performance and calculation of interest, etc., the purport of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each of the above registrations is also included under the condition of repayment of the remaining obligation established among the above claims. In a lawsuit for future performance, where the defendant asserts that each of the above registrations is not a security, there is a benefit of claim in advance. Accordingly, the original judgment ordering the defendant to cancel each of the above registrations on the condition that the defendant would be paid the remaining obligation from the plaintiff to

Article 372 of the Civil Act, Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da482 delivered on May 27, 1980, 71Da1988 delivered on July 25, 1972

Park In-person

Attorney Kang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na588 delivered on August 29, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) The judgment of the court below and the finding of facts are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the judge of the court below. The court below, based on the various evidences of the time from June 18, 1974 to November 14, 1975, determined that the plaintiff borrowed 27,235,00 won in total over 16 times before and after the defendant from June 18, 1974 to November 14, 1975, and the interest rate is at the rate of 4% per month, after provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant as to the real estate listed in the 1,2, and 1,33 list of real estate in the 1,2, and 1,33 list of real estate in the original market with the maturity date after provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, and each of the above registrations of ownership transfer are also registered as a collateral for the above borrowed loan, and rejected the defendant's assertion that each transfer registration was made as a payment in kind of obligation.

(2) According to the court below's decision, the court below confirmed the facts as to the plaintiff's remaining debt amount of 17,302,067 as of Sep. 27, 1979, which had been in progress at the court below's decision, as of Sep. 27, 1979. The records show that the method of calculating the debt amount is appropriate. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the cancellation of the above registration under the condition that the plaintiff claims the cancellation of the above registration under the provisional registration and the transfer of ownership registration on the ground that the plaintiff's repayment of the total debt amount was made or deposited, but the remaining debt remains without extinguishing all of the debt amount due to differences in opinion as to the method of satisfaction of payment and calculation of interest.

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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)