The certificate of seal impression required for the transfer registration of real estate ownership and the purchaser's column for the money as security can be transferred to the person himself/herself or a third party for the purpose of security, and if the transfer registration has been made to the third party, it is also reasonable to view that there has been an implied agreement on the middle omission.

As a security for a loan, a person who has prepared a certificate of seal impression required for the registration of real estate ownership transfer and a certificate of proxy for sale in blank may file a registration of transfer to himself/herself or a third party for the purpose of security, and if the registration of transfer has been made to a third party, it shall be deemed that there has been an implied agreement between the middle omission.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and nine others

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na63 delivered on November 19, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na63 delivered on November 19, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

In borrowing money from another person, if the person borrowing money from the other person prepares and delivers his certificate of personal seal impression and the certificate of delegation of sale in blank to the purchaser who is required for the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of real estate and the purchaser's column, and the lender who has received it has agreed to keep the above documents and return the above documents to the borrower within the designated date, barring special circumstances, if the borrower agreed to do so, the above real estate shall be provided as collateral, and the lender who has not received payment within the agreed period can make the registration of ownership transfer for the purpose of collateral by the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Ma394 delivered on October 5, 1961). If the obligee or the third person designated by the obligee has completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate by the above registration documents kept before the expiration of the agreed payment period, the obligor cannot make a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the purpose of the above agreement to the creditor, unless the obligor fails to pay the above loan by the due date.

Therefore, even though the court below did not have asserted that the plaintiff did not have agreed to perform the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case in this case against the non-party who is the creditor in this case, and that the plaintiff did not have agreed to perform the registration of ownership transfer of this case in the future of the above creditor, and even if there was no such agreement, the court below determined that the plaintiff was prepared and delivered a certificate of the plaintiff's seal impression necessary for the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case and a sale certificate to the purchaser in blank, the above creditor, barring special circumstances, can make the registration of ownership transfer with the above registration requirement documents after the payment date of the contract was made. Thus, even if the court below erred in finding that the above creditor had agreed to perform the registration of ownership transfer of this case, such as theory of lawsuit, even if the court below erred in finding that the above creditor had agreed to perform the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case, the above creditor can make the registration of ownership transfer by the registration requirement documents already delivered to the non-party creditor, and it did not err.

In addition, in light of the records and records, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the transfer security agreement, which affected the conclusion that the transfer registration of ownership of the real estate in this case was based on the transfer security agreement, since Defendant 1 borrowed 300,000 won from Defendant 1 on October 23, 1965 to Defendant 1, the above non-party was delivered the documents required for the registration of this case from May 9, 1966 to Defendant 1 as collateral for the above loan loan loan and received the registration requirements delivered from the Plaintiff. However, Defendant 1 did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the transfer security agreement, which affected the conclusion that the documents required for the transfer registration of ownership of the real estate in this case for the purpose of transfer security were delivered from the plaintiff to the non-party to the non-party before the transfer to Defendant 1. There was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the transfer security agreement and the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court