(a) Ownership of a building constructed with a title as a security interest for the purpose of security;

B. Whether a secured party who has received the secured claim but is obligated to transfer his/her status as a secured creditor has the right to demand the specification of the building

(a) If a building is constructed with its title as a security right holder for the purpose of security, the ownership of the building shall, at the same time as the construction is completed externally, be reverted to the secured party, the title holder of the building who is the construction right holder;

B. Even if the Plaintiff received the secured claim from the Nonparty, if the Plaintiff is obligated to transfer his/her status as a secured party to the Nonparty, and the Plaintiff is obligated to transfer his/her external ownership from the purpose of the security to the Nonparty, and the Plaintiff still has the right to request the evacuation of the building directly as a secured party.

Articles 372 and 664 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 7 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2442 delivered on March 13, 1979

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant et al. are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff and the non-party 1 were obligated to secure the above non-party 50,000 won and 300,000 won of the above real estate were leased to the non-party 1 under their respective agreements as stated in its holding, the defendant would sell the building on this site and repay the principal and interest thereof to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff et al. would have leased 8 million won of the building to the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 for the purpose of collateral and to construct the building for the purpose of collateral, with the non-party 1's loan to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's loan obligation to the non-party 1 for the purpose of securing the right to claim ownership transfer from the non-party 1 to the non-party 5's building on this site. Thus, the plaintiff's loan to the non-party 1 as the non-party 1 and the defendant would be obliged to pay the above non-party 2's loan to the plaintiff 1 to the above three years.

According to the records, the above facts are duly recognized by the court below. According to the above facts, if the non-party 2 pays the above claim against the defendant 5, the plaintiff transferred the security right to the land and building held by the plaintiff against the defendant to the non-party, but the plaintiff still agreed to give an explanation as a security right holder, and as a part of the transfer as a security right, the plaintiff directly claims against the defendant, etc. for the name of the building as a security right holder. Further, since the plaintiff is in a position to seek an explanation as a security right holder, the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's principal claim is justified. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending legal principles or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and all of the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, 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 Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)