The effect of a provisional registration security holder pays liquidation money to an obligor without notifying a junior creditor of Article 6 (1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act, etc.

A creditor who is a provisional registration security right does not notify a junior creditor of the fact that he notified liquidation to an obligor under Article 6 (1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act before the period of liquidation expires or when he pays liquidation money to an obligor, which cannot be set up against a junior creditor. However, since the effect of restriction on repayment of an obligee is a relative that applies only to a junior creditor, the junior creditor is deemed not yet extinguished, and the junior creditor is entitled to exercise his right directly to the obligee, and if a junior creditor claims to pay liquidation money to the obligee, the junior creditor cannot be exempted from double payment of liquidation money, and the junior creditor does not grant the obligor the right to refuse to exercise his security right solely on the ground that there is a junior creditor. Accordingly, if the junior creditor notified under Article 6 (1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act did not exercise his right directly to the obligee, and if the period of liquidation expires, the obligee can repay the liquidation money to the obligor, as well as if the creditor has a separate claim that is not secured by provisional registration security against the obligor, it can set off against the obligor's liquidation money.

Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na1947 delivered on February 27, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

A creditor who is a provisional registration security right does not notify a junior creditor of the fact that he notified of liquidation to a debtor under Article 6 (1) of the Provisional Registration Security Act (hereinafter the Act) before the period of liquidation expires, or when he paid liquidation money to a debtor, which cannot be set up against a junior creditor. However, such restriction on repayment is a relative that applies only to a junior creditor. In such a case, the junior creditor is a relative that is applied only to a junior creditor. In such a case, the junior creditor is deemed not yet extinguished, and the junior creditor is entitled to directly exercise his right to a creditor, and if the junior creditor claims to pay liquidation money to a creditor, the creditor cannot be exempted from the double payment liability of liquidation money, and the junior creditor does not grant the debtor a refusal to exercise his security right on the sole ground that

Therefore, the junior creditor who has been notified of Article 6 (1) of the Act does not directly exercise his/her right to a creditor, and when the period of liquidation expires, the creditor can repay the liquidation amount to the debtor, as well as in cases where the creditor has a separate monetary claim not secured by provisional registration security against the debtor, he/she may set off against the debtor's settlement money claim by making it an automatic claim.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant, a junior creditor, has no right to refuse the registration and surrender of the mortgaged real estate solely on the existence of the junior creditor, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, as long as the plaintiff, a junior creditor, failed to examine whether he was notified of the non-party under Article 6 (1) of the Act, but the obligation to pay the liquidation amount of the plaintiff was filed after the expiration of the liquidation period, and as long as both the delivery of the copy of

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)