In case of a request for the surrender of a building based on ownership on the ground that the reservation for payment in kind is void;

If Party A obtained the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate under the agreement that Party B shall repay the principal and interest of the real estate owned by Party B to secure Party B’s claim, and that Party B shall repurchase the real estate at a fixed date, such agreement is null and void in violation of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, even if the redemption date has been set as an accord for payment in kind, and Party A cannot seek an explanation based on the ownership.

Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da493 delivered on October 30, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 6481 delivered on November 30, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 607(15) 472 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gangnam Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (64A66) (Supreme Court Decision 64Ga66)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff sought a judgment that "the defendant is responsible for the defendant's expense" is the defendant's expense. The plaintiff is the defendant's expense. The plaintiff is the defendant's expense. The plaintiff is the defendant's expense. The plaintiff's plaintiff is the defendant's expense for the plaintiff's expenses of the plaintiff's 1, 349-3 main coapapap.

The defendant sought the same judgment as the disposition.

In the case of the 1st century, the 1st century, the 1st century, the 1st century, and the 1st century, the 22nd, the 1st century, the 1st century, and the 34th in the 34th in the 34th in the 197. 103, and the fact that the real estate was occupied by the defendant is not in dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserted on July 3, 1963, including the real estate originally owned by the defendant, and the defendant sold the above real estate to the plaintiff as a special contract for repurchase. The defendant did not repurchase until October 31 of the same year, which is the redemption period, and all of the above real estate was confirmed to be owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff claims the name of the real estate in this case possessed by the defendant, and that the defendant's response to the above real estate was made in excess of the ownership of the plaintiff's future, since the defendant transferred the above real estate to the plaintiff as a security for the debt owed by the defendant against the non-party 1, it cannot be held by the plaintiff's ownership, and even if there was a special contract for repurchase as mentioned by the plaintiff and the defendant, it was a contract corresponding to Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Code, and at the time, the contract was concluded as a security for the defendant's old-dol and experience in debt amounting to KRW 10,000,000.

In light of the above facts, Gap's certificate No. 1 without dispute over the plaintiff's establishment of the above real estate (However, the part of the non-party 1's registration of creation of mortgage No. 8 of the Gu No. 1 is deemed to be less than 3's certificate No. 6-1, Eul's certificate No. 1, and evidence No. 6-1 to 5's certificate No. 7 of the above real estate shall be deemed to be less than 0's loan No. 1 of the above real estate or 0's loan No. 1 of the above 7's loan No. 60's loan No. 8's loan No. 1 of the above real estate to the non-party 1's non-party 6's loan No. 8's loan No. 90's loan No. 1 of the above real estate and the defendant's loan No. 97's loan No. 1 of the above real estate shall be deemed to be less than 0's loan No. 97's loan No.

8.1. 42,681 won, interest rate of KRW 16,76 won on September 4 of the same year, and all the Defendant’s bank debts of KRW 309,375,00 were repaid on behalf of the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 30.13. The Defendant is unable to refund the above amount until December 15 of the same year by agreement with the Plaintiff, but the above amount was extended to KRW 80,00,000 on December 13 of the same year to the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 70,000,000 as interest rate of KRW 10,000,000,000 were not paid to the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 30,000,000,000, which was 70,0000,000 won, and there is no belief that the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 did not own any other property rights within the original limit of KRW 10,000,000 in lieu of the above loan agreement.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired ownership of this case, including real estate stated in the attached list. (In addition, in the case of the evidence No. 6-3 of this case, even if it is hard to say that the plaintiff acquired ownership of this case, the plaintiff's claim for an explanation based on the plaintiff's ownership should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for an explanation based on ownership is unfair. Since the judgment of the court below differs from this conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked and the litigation cost shall be borne to the plaintiff who lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)