In the case of transfer registration for the purpose of security, the person who bears the registration cost.

Where the registration of transfer is made for the purpose of transfer, the registration cost and the burden of acquisition tax shall be borne by the creditor unless otherwise stipulated by the parties.

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Defendant 1-(1) and 11 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant)

Defendant 6 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-at-law

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na148 delivered on November 12, 1975

All appeals by the Plaintiff, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7 are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

(1) The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Lee e-mail, balle, and literature are also examined.

원판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 증거들을 가리어 원고가 아버지인 소외 2를 대리인으로 하여 피고 2의 소개로 피고 6, 동 피고 7 및 피고 ㈀ 내지 ㈇의 피상속인인 망 소외 1(앞으로 이 3자를 채권자들이라 한다)로부터 1970.1.27 돈 1,600,000원을 이율 월 4푼5리, 변제기는 일응 3개월로 정하여 차용하고 그 담보조로 원고소유인 본건 2필지의 부동산에 관하여 대물변제 예약을 체결하고, 그 담보물에 관한 매도증서, 원고명의의 위임장, 인감증명 등을 교부한 사실, 채권자들은 위 대물변제예약을 원인으로 동년 2.12 그들 3인 명의로 가등기를 해놓은 다음 원고가 70.10. 이후의 이자지급을 여러달 연체하게 되자, 동년 12경 원고에게 1971.1.20까지 본건 원리금을 변제하도록 최고하였으나 원고가 이를 이행하지 아니하여 동년 1.22 위와같이 채권자들 명의로 소유권이전의 본등기를 하고, 원설시와 같이 피고 3에게, 다시 피고 4, 동 피고 5에게 이전되어 각기 소유권이전등기가 된 사실을 확정함과 동시에 위 예약당시의 싯가가 원고의 채권자들에 대한 채무의 원리금을 훨씬 초과한다는 인정밑에 위 대물변제예약은 무효하나 이를 위하여 한 위 등기는 채권을 담보하는 효력이 있으며, 특단의 사정이 없으니 양도담보의 효력이 있다 설시하고 채권자들이 본건 대여금의 변제기가 도과한 후에 본건 부동산에 관하여 그들 명의로 소유권이전의 본등기를 한 것은 유효하다고 판시하고 채권자들이 그 담보권실행을 위하여 본건 부동산을 피고 3에게, 동 피고는 피고 4, 동 피고 5에게 전전매도하여 이루어진 소유권이전등기 역시 유효하다고 했으며, 다만 위 채권자들은 본건 담보물에 관한 담보권실행에 관련하여 담보제공자인 원고에 대하여 청산의무와 본건 담보물을 정당한 가격으로 처분하지 아니하므로써 원고가 입은 손해를 배상하여야 할 의무가 있다고 판단하였는바, 이를 기록에 대조하여 검토하여 보아도 원심의 조치는 정당히 시인되고 거기에 소론 각 위법사유 있음을 단정할수 없다.

Each issue is groundless.

(2) The grounds of appeal by Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 are examined.

With respect to the first and fifth points:

The court below is just in holding that the above promise for payment in substitutes between the plaintiff and the creditors is not effective as a promise for return of substitutes, and only the effect of transfer for security for claims is effective, and even if the creditors deduct 15,969,000 won at the market price of the real estate as of January 24, 1971 as of January 24, 1971 in which the creditors disposed of the real estate as of this case for the exercise of security right, and the principal and interest on obligations to the non-party Daegu Bank secured by the real estate up to the time is deducted from 560,00 won, the actual price is KRW 10,369,000,000, but the disposal of the real estate to 2,370,000 won at the market price was negligent, and there is no error in matters of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the exercise of security right or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by violating the rules of evidence.

With respect to the second ground:

In general, in cases where a transfer registration is completed for the purpose of transfer for security, the expenses for transfer of ownership and the burden of acquisition tax shall be paid to the creditor in order to secure the security right. Therefore, the decision of the court below is just, and the decision of the court below is also justified, and it cannot be recognized that there are special provisions on the above special agreement in the transfer registration for transfer for the creditor's transfer for the purpose of transfer for the purpose of transfer for security, and there is no error in the decision of the court below.

With respect to the third point:

However, in calculating the market price of the real estate at the time of the exercise of the security right by the creditors, the court below calculated the amount of the principal and interest of the plaintiff's obligations to the Daegu Bank secured by the real estate at the market price at the time of the market price at the time. This measure of the court below is just and it is not reasonable to deduct the interest accrued after the exercise of the security right from the interest. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of compensation for damages

With respect to the fourth point:

In comparison with the records, the measure of offsetting the scope of negligence as stated in the facts acknowledged by the court below is justified, and the comparative negligence is disposed of much more than the market price due to the creditors' lack of knowledge of the market price in exercising the security right, and thus, in compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiff who is the debtor, the compensation for damages is acknowledged as the plaintiff's negligence and the compensation for damages is recognized as the plaintiff's negligence. It is not reasonable to consider that the plaintiff's failure to repay its obligations to Daegu Bank secured by this real estate as the real estate as the negligence, but it is not erroneous in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)

The judge of the Supreme Court shall not sign and seal on overseas travel from the court room. The judge of the Supreme Court is demoted (Presiding Justice).