Cases that should be seen as an expression agent for the month of authority and that cannot be seen as an reservation for payment in kind.

(a) If the oceangoing seafarer delegates his birth to that person the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership of home in absence and any property devolving upon that person, if he borrows money in excess of the authority after performing the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership delegated by that person and completed the transfer registration of ownership of the land transferred by sale security, the expression agency for the month of competence

B. It is justifiable to conclude that the application of this Article cannot be applied on the ground that the obligation is extinguished if the parties fail to repay the obligation particularly at the time of maturity, and that there is no special agreement to specify that the ownership of the real estate belongs to the creditor. Thus, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was transferred to secure the obligation, unless there is a special agreement to specify that the obligation is finally extinguished and that the ownership of the real

Article 126 of the Civil Act, Article 607 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Madicide

Busan District Court Decision 65Na665 delivered on April 15, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment on the first ground for appeal

The court below held that the land was originally owned by the evidence enumerated above. The plaintiff was not entitled to dispose of the land on January 6, 195 and paid the price on December 30, 1962. However, the plaintiff did not complete the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer. The plaintiff delegated to the non-party 1 who is the plaintiff's living together with the non-party 1 to take the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the above land because the non-party 1 was not entitled to dispose of the land on December 30, 1965. The above non-party 1 was not entitled to dispose of the land on April 4, 195, and the plaintiff's representative was not entitled to dispose of the land on December 30, 196, 200 won on February 28, 1963.

Judgment on the Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2 and 3

As seen earlier, if the contents of the exhibition sale security contract between the original defendant as seen earlier are repaid to the defendant by the agreement of 320,000 won of the principal of the debt and the amount of 115,200,00 won of the monthly 4% of the principal of the debt up to December 31, 1963, and the amount of 9-month interest rate of 115,200,000 won, the defendant is justified to conclude that Article 607 of the Civil Act cannot be applied on the ground that, in case where the defendant again agreed to transfer to the plaintiff the ownership of the site that was passed through it again to the plaintiff without any special opposing circumstance, unless there is a special agreement between the parties that the obligation is extinguished if the obligation is not repaid particularly at the maturity date and the ownership of the real estate is finally attributed to the creditor.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim shall be reasonable, and the judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim shall be 600,000 won at the market price at the end of the site, which exceeds 435,200 won and the principal and interest of the debt at the market price at the end of the site, but its degree of difference cannot be deemed to be remarkably unfavorable to the plaintiff as a result of its difference is that the sales security contract itself itself does not constitute another ground for invalidation, and that it did not err in understanding Article 607 of the Civil Code and explain it as a decision.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the unanimous opinion of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court