(a) When it is possible to repay an obligation to cancel ownership transfer registration made as a debt security;

(b) The case holding that a series of procedural acts conducted to postpone the time of principal registration based on a provisional registration made for security has not been an unjust lawsuit or an unreasonable dispute;

(a) In the case of a provisional registration security, even after the deadline for the performance of an obligation has expired, before the creditor is liquidated by exercising the security right, the obligor may pay the principal and interest at any time and seek the cancellation of the principal registration based on such provisional registration and provisional registration;

B. Even though the plaintiff did not dispute the principal registration claim based on provisional registration No. 76 A. 419 and brought about the result of interfering with the realization of the defendant's right by filing an appeal or an appeal, the plaintiff's act of litigation is a litigation within the scope of a right permitted for the plaintiff to delay the time of repayment due to delayed delay of the principal registration time based on provisional registration. Further, the plaintiff's act of litigation is a litigation within the scope of a right permitted for the plaintiff's prohibition of disposition and provisional registration No. 78 A. 107 and the third party's objection case's lawsuit is deemed to have been filed by the plaintiff while the principal and interest are deposited, and the plaintiff's lawsuit or response is a series of litigation related to the above lawsuit to find the real estate which was lost by the defendant's exercise of the defendant's security right, and it does not appear to be an improper lawsuit or an unjust dispute due to the plaintiff's intention or negligence to cause harm to the defendant only without any reasonable reason.

A. Article 372(b) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da2033 Decided January 15, 1980, 80Da482 Decided May 27, 1980

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2827 delivered on December 29, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below, with respect to the defendant's objection to the offset of this case, the court below acknowledged the following facts: "In order to constitute an illegal act as an illegal act as an illegal action or an unfair complaint, the plaintiff first does not have the right to claim against the plaintiff; the plaintiff did not know that there is no right due to intention or negligence; and in relation to the other party's infringement of legal interest, the plaintiff must have intention or negligence; and in relation to the response or appeal, the defendant must have intention or negligence to cause damage to the plaintiff only without any reasonable ground, or negligence that could have known such circumstance." In light of the evidence in the judgment, "the plaintiff's assertion is against the defendant, and the defendant cannot be responded or rejected." However, even in relation to the evidence before the defendant's whole lawsuit, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the facts that the plaintiff had such intention or negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lost the above lawsuit or the plaintiff did not constitute a tort against the defendant."

I think, even after the expiration of the period for performance of obligation in the case of the so-called provisional registration security, the obligor is entitled to make repayment of principal and interest at any time and seek cancellation of the principal registration based on such provisional registration and provisional registration (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da2033, Jan. 15, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Da482, May 27, 1980). According to the records, the evidence cited by the court below is examined by comparing the records, the plaintiff did not dispute the above claim based on provisional registration No. 76Gahap419, and filed an appeal to the defendant, thereby hindering the realization of the defendant's right, even if such litigation was conducted at the latest after the expiration of the period for performance of the principal registration based on the provisional registration, and such litigation was conducted within the scope permitted for late payment due to the obligee's delayed payment of the principal and interest, and the plaintiff's right to file a lawsuit or the plaintiff's cancellation of the principal and interest of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not attributable to the plaintiff (the plaintiff's loss of this case).

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is not likely to cause any misunderstanding as pointed out, but the explanation is examined in detail. The purport of the plaintiff's response to each of the above actions is that the plaintiff's response to the lawsuit or the act of filing the lawsuit cannot be viewed as an unfair lawsuit, or an unfair dispute caused by intention or negligence, and there is no other evidence to recognize the establishment of tort caused by an unfair lawsuit or an unfair dispute, and the argument eventually leads to the misunderstanding of the original judgment, and it cannot be said that there is any inconsistency with the grounds such as the argument in the original judgment.

In addition, according to the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the plaintiff's defense of set-off is dismissed on the premise that each of the plaintiff's responses or the act of filing a lawsuit does not constitute an illegal act due to an unfair lawsuit or an unfair dispute, and that the plaintiff is liable for damages due to an illegal act, such as the plaintiff's responses or the act of filing a lawsuit does not constitute an illegal act due to an unfair lawsuit or an unfair dispute. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of illegal act due to an unfair dispute as pointed out in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the argument that the plaintiff illegally invadedd the plaintiff's house and the defendant had filed a complaint against the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff conspiredd with the non-party, which constitutes a new argument at a party member, and thus it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal. This argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)