Mortgage Security and Unfair Juristic Act

In the sense of providing as debt security, the above legal act cannot be deemed as an act of grossly losing the fairness, solely on the ground that the pertinent legal act was at least KRW 1,527,300,000, compared to the loan amount of KRW 5,000,000, when the registration document was issued.

Article 104 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1460 delivered on September 19, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 153Da119 delivered on September 19, 196, Supreme Court Decision 69Da719 delivered on January 27, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 3828 delivered on January 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18Da21 delivered on January 21, 197, Supreme Court Decision 104(27)233 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (67Ga14289) in the first instance trial

(1) The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

(2) Costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which is the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sungdong Office of 5621 on March 23, 1967, with respect to the 6 forest and 7 forest and 11 forest and 8 forest and 11 forest and 11 forest, for the plaintiff.

All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(1) According to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 without any dispute over the establishment, it is recognized that the registration of ownership transfer, such as the statement in the purport of the claim, is passed respectively by the plaintiff's name on Jan. 18, 1967, under the name of the non-party 1 (the defendant at the trial as the defendant), and on March 16, 1967, the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 1 to the defendant's name on the ground of the sale on the same day.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that the real estate was originally owned by the plaintiff, and on January 15, 1967, the plaintiff would provide the real estate under his own name to another person for the transfer of ownership, and will lend 500,000 won to him as a security, and the non-party 1 affixed a seal necessary for the transfer of ownership under his own name and delivered 50,000 won to the plaintiff, and the non-party 2 did not lend 50,000 won to the plaintiff, even though the provisional registration of the transfer of ownership was made against the real estate. Thus, the plaintiff agreed to the plaintiff as delivery of the complaint of this case and the non-party 1 expressed his intention to cancel the legal act by fraud as above. The non-party 1 provided the non-party 1 with the above 50,000 won to the non-party 1 for the sale of the real estate under his own name and purchase of the real estate under his own name and sale of the real estate under his own name, and thus, he did not know that the sale of the real estate under his own name to be cancelled 307,00.

(3) First of all, upon examining the evidence on the validity of the ownership transfer registration that was passed through Nonparty 1, it cannot be found that Nonparty 1, even though having no intention to lend money to the Plaintiff, deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby passing through the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above registration of ownership transfer is a juristic act due to Nonparty 1’s fraud is revoked cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, this paper examines the validity of the transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant.

If Non-party 1's testimony is gathered to the whole purport of the oral argument, the non-party 1 offered the real estate as security and borrowed 500,000 won (in fact, 475,000 won) from the non-party 1 to the non-party 3 around March 10, 1967, and delivered the documents necessary for the registration of the ownership transfer to the non-party 3. The non-party 3 again offered the real estate as security and borrowed money to the defendant around March 23, 1967, it can be recognized that the above registration document received from the non-party 3 was used to pass the registration of transfer to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of the non-party 1 and the defendant did not have the date of direct legal act, and the non-party 1 cannot be accepted as being a mere act that provided the non-party 1 with the above registration document to the non-party 1's debt security at the same time as the above recognition, and it cannot be seen that the above registration document was invalid.

(4) If so, the registration of ownership transfer passed before Nonparty 1 does not necessarily become null and void, as well as the registration of ownership transfer passed through the Defendant cannot be deemed null and void from Nonparty 1. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit based on the premise that it is null and void shall return to the court below without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below to this purport is just and without merit, and the costs of appeal are dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the losing party.

Judge Sick-man (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-man's rank