Whether Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act apply to payment in kind

In reality, Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Act do not apply to payment in kind.

Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (68Ga4192) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative, against the Plaintiff, performed the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the ownership transfer registration of co-ownership ownership transfer on the ground of sale on October 23, 1967, which was completed on November 23, 1967 by the Seodaemun District Court of Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul District Court No. 45522, Nov. 7, 1967, and Defendant 1 corporation (hereinafter “Defendant 1 corporation”) will implement the procedure for registering the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of co-ownership transfer of co-ownership of co-ownership of the above real estate, which was completed on September 12, 1967 by No. 35487, Sept. 11, 1967.

Litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, etc.

As to 1/3 of co-ownership share in the real estate listed in the attached list, the plaintiff transferred from the above defendant company to the defendant company 1 company the ownership transfer of co-ownership as stated in the claim from the above defendant company to the defendant company. The plaintiff is a substitute payment for the debt to the defendant company of the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1 corporation") which was the representative director, and the plaintiff decided 2/3 of the real estate as the substitute payment for the debt to the defendant company of the non-party 1 corporation as the representative director and transferred it to the above defendant company with 20,075,000 won

At the market price at the time of the accord and satisfaction of the above real estate, the Plaintiff reached KRW 55,765,000 per books, which was paid in kind at KRW 20,775,000. However, this is alleged to be in violation of the Civil Code Articles 607 and 608, and thus null and void. Thus, if the borrower has promised to transfer other property rights in lieu of the borrowed object, the value of the property as at the time of the promise shall not exceed the aggregate amount of the borrowed amount and the interest attached thereto. Article 608 of the Civil Code provides that an agreement by the party who violates the provisions of Article 607 of the above Civil Code, which is unfavorable to the borrower, is null and void, and thus, Article 608 of the above Civil Code does not apply to the payment in kind in reality as at the time of the promise.

In other words, the plaintiff was merely 18,680,806 won of the actual debt amount of the non-party 1's above defendant company. At the time of payment in kind, the plaintiff made 20,765,000 won of the property equivalent to 55,765,00 won at the time of physical restraint due to the violation of checks, etc. as above, in an urgent situation, the plaintiff made payment in kind to 20,775,000 won. This is alleged to be null and void as an act contrary to Article 104 of the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiff's 100,000 won of the above non-party 2,360,000 won of the above defendant company's debt amount to the non-party 4 company at the time of payment in kind, and 0,000 won of the above non-party 2,50,000 won of the above defendant company's debt amount to the non-party 1 company at the time of payment in kind.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit is reasonable and it should be dismissed, the original judgment with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95, 89, and 93 of the same Act with respect to the burden of appeal costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Jeong-won (Presiding Judge)