Delivery of documents necessary for transfer of ownership at the time of money borrowing and establishment of a security agreement;

If the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant while completing the registration of creation of collateral security again, extended the due date, and received the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, and if the Plaintiff re-issued the due date in the Plaintiff, then the Defendant deemed the ownership in his/her front in accordance with the registration documents for transfer of ownership, then it would be deemed as a sales contract for repurchase or a contract for transfer of collateral security with a weak meaning of establishment of a contract for sale of collateral security, or would not be deemed as an invalid contract for payment of accord and satisfaction, spaw, etc.

Articles 607, 608, and 103 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court of First Instance (66A3547)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff, Defendant 2: (a) received registration from the Daegu District Court on May 31, 1966, No. 18061, May 29, 1966, as to 40 to 16:4: (b) 40 to 92 square meters; (c) Defendant 1 of the ownership transfer registration on the ground of sale on the ground of the Daegu District Court’s receipt of registration No. 18061, May 29, 1966, as to the relevant land; (d) obtained registration No. 5187, Nov. 30, 1965; and (e) implemented each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer

(Request for Main Enemy)

Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from May 30, 1966 to the full payment day.

(Preliminary Claim)

Litigation Costs shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances and a declaration of provisional execution.

Since the Plaintiff entered into a sale contract with Defendant 1 on June 17, 1965, the interest rate of KRW 100,00 on the 6th of each month, the due date for payment was to register the establishment of the real estate in order to secure it, and there is no dispute between the parties as stated in the purport of the above real estate claim, as stated in the purport of the above above, as the Plaintiff’s name was stated in the order of priority to secure the above money, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to enter into a sale contract with the above 10th of each of the above 6th of each of the above 7th of all the 196th of all the 6th of all the 196th of all the 6th of all the 196th of all the 10th of all the 196th of all the 10th of all the 196th of all the 10th of all the 6th of all the 196th of all the 10th of all the 196th of all the 1st of all the 19th of all the 10th of these documents.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above (1) assertion is without merit, and the above sales contract is concluded due to the plaintiff's old-age, rashness, or inexperience, as alleged by the plaintiff, and even if the value of the above real estate at the time is the same as the plaintiff's head, it cannot be deemed null and void as it is the purport of transfer for security

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's proposal (A) of the above (2), and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion as to the above (2) of the presumption that the above sales contract is a pre-contract for payment in kind.

Even if the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 entered into a transfer security contract as above, as long as the date of repayment was postponed on May 17, 1966, and again agreed to repay the total amount of KRW 170,000 as principal and interest on the 19th day of that month, Defendant 1 refused to receive and sell the same on the 19th day (19th day), and thus, it is null and void since Defendant 2 purchased the same as above in bad faith even if there was a sale among the Defendants of domestic affairs, it is also null and void. Even if it is not so, Defendant 1’s selling act becomes a tort against the Plaintiff and fails to perform the above obligation to return the real estate, and thus, Defendant 1 is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for a considerable amount of money at the market price of the above real estate, and thus, the Plaintiff agreed to repay the total amount of KRW 170,000,000 as principal and interest. In light of the purport of the agreement, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the above 96th day of the Plaintiff’s testimony by 16 months.

Thus, Defendant 1 had the right to dispose of the above real estate in order to meet his claim after the due date ( May 19, 1966) expires, and his sale to Defendant 2 is based on this right to dispose. Thus, there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion under the premise that Defendant 1's sale becomes a tort and the default against the plaintiff is a tort (the plaintiff can claim only the balance of the debt appropriation) and even if Defendant 2 purchased the above real estate in bad faith as the head of the household.

Therefore, since all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed unfairly, the original judgment is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)