The validity of repayment of the principal and interest of an obligor's obligation before and after the maturity date for a contract for security of an unregistered building is transferred to an unregistered bond and the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the final buyer is made.

As long as the right to transfer is not acquired by law in a contract for transfer of security for unregistered buildings, since the right to transfer is not acquired by law, the final transferee has the right to file a claim for registration of interest by acting in subrogation of the transfer and creditor before the right to claim registration is exercised, so if the debtor pays the principal and interest of the creditor before the right to claim registration is exercised, the right to claim registration of the original creditor is extinguished, and registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the final buyer is invalid.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da851,852 delivered on November 24, 1964 (No. 6089, Supreme Court Decision 12Du178 delivered on May 24, 1971 (No. 71Da669 delivered on May 24, 197)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (75 Gohap3947) in the first instance trial

1. The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation upon the entrustment of provisional seizure on June 20, 1975 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

1. First, we examine the defendant's application for an appeal for the subsequent completion of this case.

According to the records of the case, when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and co-defendant 2 of the court below on October 6, 1975 against the defendant and co-defendant 2 of the court below, the defendant's domicile in Seongdong-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul and submitted a complaint to the court below on October 6, 1975 by indicating the defendant's domicile as 363, and accordingly, the court below served the defendant with a writ of summons and a copy of complaint on December 11, 1975 to the defendant on the above domicile, but it was impossible to serve the defendant with a writ of summons and a copy of complaint because his address was unknown, and according to the court below's order to correct the address, the plaintiff applied for service by public notice with the last address of the above defendant as 363, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and the court below ordered the defendant to serve all the litigation documents against the above defendant by public service by public notice, and the above judgment was served on the defendant on April 9, 1976.

However, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 1 (the certified copy of the resident registration card) in the document No. 1 (the certified copy of the resident registration card) in which the establishment is not disputed, the last address of the above defendant is that of the defendant's registry, and the defendant was living in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, from August 31, 1972, to July 8, 1076, 107, 241-94 (the changed administrative subdivision as above) of Mapo-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 241-94 (the changed administrative subdivision as above), but it is not possible to find that the lawsuit was brought about due to the fact that the lawsuit of this case was conducted by service by public notice, which was subsequent to the decision of the court below.

Therefore, the completion of the above defendant's appeal should be allowed as it constitutes a case where the defendant did not file an appeal within the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

2. We examine the merits.

On April 22, 1974, KRW 300,00 from Nonparty 1 to June 16 of the same year, the interest rate of KRW 70,00 shall be KRW 70,00,000, transferred to Nonparty 1 the ownership of the building indicated in the attached Table, which was not owned by the plaintiff, as a security for its obligation. However, on June 16 of the same year, the plaintiff did not pay KRW 370,00,000 to Nonparty 1, who was ordered to order the above building to pay the principal and interest of KRW 74,207,00 (Seoul Civil District Court 74,207). Since the plaintiff did not pay the principal and interest of the above 70,000,000 to the above 16,000,000 won, the non-party 1 was granted with an execution clause by the above complaint and did not acquire the ownership transfer right to the non-party 1 to the above 36,000,000,00 won.

According to the above facts without dispute, the non-party 1 entered into a contract with the plaintiff and the non-party 2 as a security for the obligation of the non-party 1. After that contract, the non-party 1 sold the above building to the non-party 3 and the non-party 2, and then sold the above building in succession to the defendant. Thus, the defendant or the above non-party is merely a creditor under the security transfer contract or sales contract for each of the above buildings, who has a right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership as a creditor under each of the above buildings. Thus, while the plaintiff did not exercise the right to claim the registration of transfer, he deposited the principal and interest of the loan to the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 would clearly refuse the payment of the above building for 400,000 won if the plaintiff had already sold the building to the non-party 2 and it is clear that the payment without the provision of payment would be valid). Accordingly, the non-party 1's right to claim the registration of transfer as a creditor under the security contract for the building which the non-party 2 had exercised against the plaintiff.

3. Therefore, the building in this case is deemed to be the plaintiff's ownership, and since the registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name is deemed to be invalid registration, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the above preservation registration. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this lawsuit is justified and it is decided to accept it (the plaintiff filed a request for registration of ownership transfer in the court below but changed to the exchange with the claim for cancellation of ownership registration in the first instance trial, the claim for registration of ownership transfer

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the losing party and shall be decided as per the Disposition.

[Attachment List of Buildings]

Judges Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)