[1] The meaning of "interested persons" or "reasonable interests to be discharged" as stipulated in Articles 469 (2) and 481 of the Civil Code

[2] In a case where a subordinate mortgage has been established on the real estate owned by the joint mortgagee, which is the object of the joint mortgage, and the prior mortgagee has been paid out by auction, whether the owner of the joint mortgagee who has not yet been put on auction can file a claim for registration of cancellation of the prior mortgage on the ground of the extinguishment of the senior mortgagee's obligation to the mortgagee (negative), and whether the junior mortgagee may file a claim for registration of cancellation of the prior mortgage on behalf of the joint mortgagee (affirmative)

[3] Where a provisional registration of a right to claim ownership transfer on the real estate owned by a person who has pledged to secure another's property, which is the object of a joint mortgage, is established, and the joint mortgagee first puts an auction on the real estate and receives a total amount of the proceeds from the sale and distributes debts, the case holding that the person who has the right to the provisional registration does not constitute "interested third party" or

[1] Article 469(2) of the Civil Code provides that a third party without an interest shall not make a performance against the obligor’s will, and Article 481 of the Civil Code provides that a person with a legitimate interest to make a performance shall subrogate the obligee as a matter of course by payment. A person with a “interest” or “justifiable interest to make a performance” as referred to in the above provision refers to a person with a legal interest to be protected as a matter of course by making a performance, inasmuch as he/she is in a position to have an execution from the obligee or lose his/her right against the obligor unless he/she makes a performance, and a person

[2] Where a mortgage is established on the real estate owned by the property owned by the property owned by the property owned by the property owned by the property owned by the property owned by the property mortgaged, if the property owned by the joint mortgagee has been sold by auction prior to the payment of the auction proceeds, the property owned by the property owned by the property owned by the property pledged by the property pledged by the property pledged by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the property secured by the said property shall not

[3] In a case where a provisional registration of a right to claim ownership transfer on the real estate owned by a person who has pledged to secure another's property, which is the object of a joint mortgage, is established, and where the joint mortgagee first conducted an auction for the real estate and received a total amount of the proceeds from the sale and some of the debts remain over, the case holding that the above provisional registration right holder does not constitute "interested third party" or "person who has legitimate interest

[1] Articles 469(2) and 481 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 341, 342, 368(2), 369, 370, 481, and 482 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 368(2), 469(2), and 481 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 63Da251 delivered on July 11, 1963 (No. 11-2, No. 52), Supreme Court Decision 89Meu24834 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, No. 1051 delivered on July 12, 1991), Supreme Court Decision 90Da1774, 17781 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, No. 2144 delivered on May 10, 199) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da25417 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong194, No. 1638), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da21854 delivered on June 1, 201 (Gong201Ha, 1510)

Re-appellant

Changwon District Court Order 2007Ra105 dated January 9, 2008

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 469(2) of the Civil Act provides that a third party who has no interest shall not make a performance against the obligor’s will, and Article 481 of the Civil Act provides that a person who has a legitimate interest to make a performance shall, as a matter of course, subrogate the obligee by performance. The person who has an interest “interested” or “justifiable interest to make a performance” as referred to in the above provision refers to a person who has a legal interest to be protected by subrogation by performance because he/she is in a position to receive an execution from the obligee or lose his/her right against the obligor unless he/she makes a performance.

On the other hand, in the case where the subordinated mortgage is established on the real estate owned by the property owned by the property pledged by the property pledged by the property pledged by the joint mortgagee, the property pledged by the property pledged by the joint mortgagee shall be held by auction prior to the payment of the auction price, and at the same time the property pledged by the joint mortgagee shall acquire the right to indemnity against the debtor, the property pledged by subrogation under Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act shall be held by the mortgagee, and the subordinate mortgagee of the property owned by the property pledged by the property pledged by the property pledged by the property pledged by the property pledged by the property pledged by the joint mortgagee shall be held by subrogation of the above senior mortgage. Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the senior mortgage shall not be made, but it shall be deemed that the registration of the cancellation thereof shall not be made only on the ground that the property owned by the property owned by the property mortgaged by the above joint mortgagee was extinguished (refer to Supreme Court Decision 93Da25417 delivered on May 10, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the records, in order to secure the claims against non-applicant 1 and non-applicant 2's real estate, the non-applicant 1 completed the registration of joint establishment of a mortgage on the non-applicant 1's real estate and non-applicant 2's real estate. The re-appellant completed the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership in order to secure the claims against non-applicant 2's real estate owned by non-applicant 2's above joint establishment registration. However, the real estate owned by non-applicant 2 was sold by voluntary auction process first, and the proceeds from the sale were fully distributed to the non-applicant 1's non-applicant 3,450 won, and the non-applicant tried to pay the balance of the debt to the non-applicant 1's non-applicant 1's non-applicant 1, but the non-applicant 1 refused to receive the debt on the ground that the non-applicant 1's non-applicant 1's non-applicant 1's non-applicant 3's interest in the deposit.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above applicant non-applicant non-applicant 2 acquired the senior mortgage by subrogation on the real estate owned by the applicant non-applicant 1, and the re-appellant is entitled to receive the repayment by subrogation on the above senior collateral mortgage, and the re-appellant's assertion that the re-appellant intends to pay the balance of the above debt in order to request a direct auction on the real estate owned by the non-applicant 1 is not merely because the re-appellant is in a position to be executed by the creditor or lose his right to the debtor.

Therefore, the Re-Appellant cannot be deemed to constitute “interested third party” or “a person who has legitimate interest in repayment” in the repayment of the debt balance to the Seocho Saemaul Depository of the non-applicant 1, and the judgment of the court below to the same effect is justifiable.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)