Cases where a third party shall be deemed to have offered as security, barring special circumstances.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the real estate was provided as a collateral if the mortgage contract was concluded with a creditor of his/her own fraternity as a collateral on the real estate owned by the children.

Article 356 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Eduk-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2153 Decided April 23, 1969, 68Na2153

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

In its reasoning, the original judgment: (a) on the premise that: (b) the Plaintiff’s mother was the Plaintiff’s ownership; (c) Nonparty 1 and the Defendants were the Plaintiff’s mother was the Plaintiff’s share of share; and (d) Nonparty 1 was liable to the Defendants; (c) Nonparty 1 concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendants with a maximum debt amount of KRW 1,50,000 for the instant building and its site amount of KRW 36 square meters on May 23, 196, Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (d) concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendants with a maximum debt amount of KRW 1,50,000 on the same day on the same day; and (d) on the premise that there was no dispute between the Defendants on the premise that the Plaintiff provided a security for the Defendants’ obligations to the Plaintiff; (e) the Plaintiff was acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, and (e) the Plaintiff was unable to accept the mortgage contract with the Plaintiff’s share of the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff.

However, if non-party 1, who bears the obligation to return money at Won-si, on behalf of the plaintiff as to the building and site of this case owned by the plaintiff, entered into a contract for establishing a right to collateral on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants who are creditors of the right to collateral security and the maximum debt amount of 1.5 million won with the establisher of the right to collateral security on behalf of the plaintiff, it shall be reasonable to regard the plaintiff as having provided the building of this case which belongs to the non-party 1's possession as security to secure the obligation to return money at Won-si, unless other special circumstances exist. However, it shall be erroneous that the court below concluded that the plaintiff cannot be deemed as having provided the non-party 1's security on the non-party 1's obligation to the non-party 1's defendants without any other special circumstances, and it shall be deemed as having affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the original judgment shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court for the first half of the judgment as to the non-party 1's appeal No. 6.3 of this case as the plaintiff's appeal No. 16 of this case's appeal No.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)