Whether the cancellation of the registration can be claimed in exchange for the repayment of the secured debt in case where the registration of transfer of ownership is terminated for debt security (negative)

Where a registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the creditor for the security of a specific obligation, the obligor may seek the cancellation of such registration on the grounds of the extinguishment of the objective of security after the repayment of the secured obligation is made, and may not seek the cancellation in exchange for the repayment of the secured obligation.

Articles 372 and 536 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3647 delivered on May 30, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to secure a specific debt, a debtor may seek cancellation of the registration of transfer on the ground of the extinguishment of the purpose of collateral if he/she has paid out the secured debt and the creditor is not entitled to seek cancellation of the registration of transfer on the ground of the extinguishment of the purpose of collateral. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the registration of transfer on the real estate in the name of the defendant was made through the plaintiff's intent for the security of collateral, and then, in order for the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the above registration of transfer on the real estate in the name of the defendant, the repayment of the secured debt must be made prior, and the claim for cancellation should be made in exchange for the performance of the secured debt. In addition, as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant additionally agreed to lend 1,500,000 won to the creditor and did not perform the registration of transfer on the ground that the defendant did not have an obligation to cancel the above registration of transfer on the ground of the collateral. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is without merit. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Justices Seo Il-sung (Presiding Justice)