(a) Requirements to take effect of payment in kind;

B. Legal nature and effect of the debtor's act of transferring another claim in relation to the repayment of obligation to the creditor

(a) If the payment in kind is to take effect, it shall be realistic for the debtor to pay other benefits in lieu of the original execution, and if it is required to register or register, it shall be completed until it is registered;

B. It is not reasonable to presume that a debtor transfers other claims to a creditor in relation to the repayment of obligations by means of a security for repayment of obligations or a method of repayment, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it is not deemed that the original claim is extinguished if the assignment of claims is made.

A. Article 466 of the Civil Act; Articles 449 and 105 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Da1758 delivered on June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1279) (Gong1987, 1778). Supreme Court Decision 89Da10385 delivered on October 26, 1987 (Gong1990, 633 delivered on February 13, 1990) (Gong1993Ha, 1992). Supreme Court Decision 93Da50291 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194, 109)

Korea Mutual Savings Bank, Inc.

Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the Gyeongbuk-do Freight Trucking Association

Daegu District Court Decision 94Na4835 delivered on February 10, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The recognition and judgment of the court below as to the points pointed out by the theory of lawsuit is justified in light of the relevant evidence and the records, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and if the facts are as determined by the court below, the judgment below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the representation representation.

2. On the second ground for appeal

As the court below made an agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party on September 13, 1993 to determine the debt owed by the plaintiff to the non-party as KRW 50,00,000, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff that the debt owed by the non-party was reduced in its amount is insufficient for some expressions, but it is acceptable to accept the defendant's claim on the grounds of its stated reasoning. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the agreement to reduce the main debt and the method of consent

3. On the third ground for appeal

In order for payment in kind to take effect, other benefits paid by the debtor in lieu of the original performance must be realistic, and if the registration or enrollment is required, the registration or enrollment shall be completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da1389, Sept. 7, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1758, Jun. 26, 1984); and in addition, it is presumed that the debtor transfers other claims to the creditor in connection with the repayment in kind by means of a security or repayment for the repayment in the absence of special circumstances, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the transfer of claims to the creditor is made by means of a security for the repayment in kind, and it is not deemed that the original claim is extinguished if the assignment of claims is made in this case, and there is no record that only the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party on the transfer of membership rights and that the transfer of claims to return the deposit was made in lieu of the existing repayment. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the payment in kind has become effective, and it does not have been prepared in writing.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of payment in kind, validity of authentic deeds, confession, and the rules of evidence as pointed out in the arguments.

4. All arguments are without merit, and the 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 Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)