Whether jurisdiction agreement between the mortgagee of the right to collateral security and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security has been effective against the transferee of the real estate.

The agreement under the jurisdiction shall be concluded that the real right to real estate does not extend to a specific successor, and if the transferee of the real estate is merely a specific successor who has acquired the ownership of the share of the right to collateral (it shall not be deemed that the acquisitor of the right to collateral security has succeeded to the status of the debtor of the right to collateral security or the person who has created the right to collateral security as a matter of course) the agreement under jurisdiction between the person who

Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

Daegu District Court Order 94Ra11 Dated February 24, 1994

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

On September 1, 1990, the non-party 1 entered into a mortgage agreement with the non-party 1 and the debtor on October 7, 191 with respect to the real estate of this case owned by the non-party 1, which was the owner of the real estate of this case, and entered into a mortgage agreement with the non-party 1 and the above company with the non-party 1, and completed a registration of the establishment of the mortgage on October 13, 1993, and completed a registration of the ownership transfer for sale on September 12, 1993 under the name of the non-party 1 and the above company. The court below dismissed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the non-party 1 and the above company were the competent court of the above company's domicile. The non-party 1 and the above company's transfer of the real estate of this case to the non-party 1 as the owner of the real estate of this case was already extinguished, but the court of first instance accepted the other party's request for transfer from the court of this case.

The agreement of jurisdiction shall be effective to the specific successor of the real right to the real estate. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Re-Appellant acquired the status of the debtor of the above non-party 1 and the person who created the right to collateral security, the Re-Appellant is merely a specific successor who acquired the ownership of the above right to collateral security (it shall not be viewed that the purchaser of the right to collateral security succeeds the status of the debtor of the right to collateral security or the person who created the right to collateral security). Thus, the above agreement of jurisdiction between the above non-party 1 and the above company shall not be effective to the Re-Appellant.

Nevertheless, the order of the court below that judged that the above jurisdiction agreement has effect on the re-appellant who is a specific successor to the real estate of this case does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the jurisdiction agreement, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss that this point is included in the point of view.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)