(a) Effect of the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of an illegal promise for payment in substitutes under Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act;

(b) Whether an implied agreement exists on the omission of intermediate registration where documents required for the transfer registration of ownership is delivered in blank (affirmative)

(a) Even if the promise for payment in kind is null and void in accordance with Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Code, if a mortgagee disposes of the collateral to a third party and completes the registration thereof, the obligor cannot set up against the third party with the invalidity of the promise for payment in kind.

B. In the event that the buyer delivers the document requiring the registration of ownership transfer to blank, it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement to omit the intermediate registration in a implied and orderly manner in the registration of ownership transfer.

A. Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act; Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2996 Delivered on February 23, 1971

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Lee Jae-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2616 delivered on December 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In its reasoning, the court below agreed on February 5, 1976 that the Plaintiff borrowed 5,00,000 won from Nonparty 1 within the maturity of 20 days and did not repay the above loan to March 16 of the same year by March 16 of the same year, the Plaintiff received the payment under a sales contract stating that the land will be sold to the Defendant on the agreed date, and issued the documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership, such as the receipt, sales certificate, proxy certificate, and certificate of seal impression, and the non-party 1 sold the above land to the Defendant on June 5 of the same year and delivered the documents related to the ownership transfer registration, and thus the Defendant recognized the fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Defendant’s name on the date of the same month. The court below accepted the above measures in accordance with the records, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by mistake or misunderstanding of facts in the process.

2. According to the records, even though the plaintiff asserted that the promise for payment in kind was null and void after the market price at that time exceeds the debt amount at that time and submitted the corresponding evidence, the court below did not make a decision as to this point of view as it was pointed out in theory. However, even if the promise for payment in kind is null and void in accordance with the provisions of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Code, it shall be valid within the scope of the object of transfer. If the mortgagee disposed of the collateral to a third party and registered it, the debtor cannot oppose the third party. Thus, as seen above, as long as the defendant purchased the land of this case, which is the object of transfer from the above non-party 1, the mortgagee, and as long as the acquisition registration was completed by the defendant, the above invalidity cannot be asserted against the defendant, it shall be rejected, and therefore, the omission of judgment as to this cannot be considered as the ground for reversal of the judgment of the court below.

3. In light of the record, even after reviewing the record of No. 6, it is clear that only the plaintiff and the non-party 2 signed and sealed it. Thus, the theory that the certificate of custody was prepared by the plaintiff and the non-party 2 is groundless.

4. According to the records, it is reasonable to view that there was an agreement to omit intermediate registration in implied and successive order in the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant in this case, since the parties did not dispute that the purchaser's shortage was sent in blank to the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership of this case's land, etc., and that there was an agreement to omit intermediate registration in the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant. Therefore, the judgment of the court below

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)