(a) Where a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property to secure another's property to secure another's property has lost the ownership of the property by the exercise of the mortgage, the scope of the obligation of recourse to the property to the surety;

B. Whether Article 477 of the Civil Code applies in cases where a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's obligation exercises the right to demand reimbursement against one person jointly and severally liable (negative)

A. A person jointly and severally liable and B established a right to collateral security on his own real estate for the purpose of securing his obligation to the creditors, but has lost the ownership of the above real estate due to the enforcement of the right to collateral security on the debtor. However, if a person who has pledged his property to secure another's property without the request of the joint and severally liable Party A, A has a duty to claim the property to the person who has pledged his property to the extent

B. Article 447 of the Civil Act merely provides for one of the obligors jointly and severally liable or the other obligors who have become surety on behalf of one of the obligors, or for the right to indemnity against the other obligors, and there is no room to apply to the case where the person who has pledged his property to secure another’s obligation exercises the right to indemnity against one of the obligors jointly

(a) Articles 44(1) and 481(b) of the Civil Act;

Rapped Flacing Flacing

Attorney Choi Yong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na41223 delivered on July 6, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established a contract establishing a right to collateral security on January 5, 1987, which provides that the defendant shall be liable for joint and several debt of approximately KRW 300,00,000,00 which the non-party Sejong Electronic Co., Ltd. bears with respect to the non-party corporation. On February 2, 1987, the plaintiff signed a contract establishing a right to collateral security with respect to the above real estate for the purpose of securing the above obligation between the above treatment and the above treatment, which is the non-party's name electronic and defendant, the right to collateral security, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 85,00,00, and completed the establishment of the right to collateral security on the same day. The above treatment is just for the court below's decision on March 29, 1988, after which the plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on the above real estate with the above right to collateral security, and there is no violation of law regarding the plaintiff's right to collateral security interest of KRW 70,95,16,3015,200,14,200.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The theory of lawsuit is premised on the fact that there is no part of the defendant's liability with respect to the above goods payment obligation, or the part to be borne by the defendant is only KRW 100,00,000,00. However, since it is different from the facts acknowledged by the court below, it is not different from the argument of mistake of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence. Article 447 of the Civil Act merely provides for the joint and several obligors jointly and severally liable or the other indivisible obligors' right to indemnity against the defendant who is one of the joint and several obligors jointly and severally liable, and there is no room to apply the above provision in this case where the plaintiff who has become a surety to secure another's obligation for all joint and several liability, exercises the right to indemnity against the defendant who is the one of the obligors jointly and severally liable, there is no

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)