The status of a third party who purchased the object of transfer security;

Where the price at the time of the promise for payment in kind for an object exceeds the aggregate of the principal and interest of the obligation, such excess portion shall be null and void pursuant to Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, or only to the extent that the principal and interest of the above portion are secured, the security shall be effective, and in external relations, a person who purchased the object from a mortgagee who has acquired full ownership and has registered the ownership transfer

Article 607 of the Civil Act, Article 608 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da218 Decided April 6, 1966

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Military production support in the first instance court, the Jeonju District Court Decision 66Na442 delivered on December 23, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The facts confirmed by the court below are as follows. In other words, the plaintiff borrowed 1.50,000 won interest monthly 8,000 won from defendant 2 (the plaintiff's father's representative) and 1.50,000 won interest monthly 8,000 won from July 28, 1965 and the due date for payment on October 28, 1965, and the plaintiff agreed to make the real estate owned by the plaintiff as payment in kind if the plaintiff fails to repay his obligation at any time on the due date of the above repayment in order to secure the above obligation, and deliver documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership such as the certificate of the plaintiff's seal impression and the certificate of sale, etc. to defendant 2. The defendant 2 sold this real estate to the defendant 1 that the registration of transfer of ownership was made under his own name, and the registration of transfer in the name of defendant 1 on November 3, 19

Therefore, even if the above promise for payment in kind is null and void as in the theory of lawsuit pursuant to Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, if the price at the time of the above promise for payment in kind exceeds the above aggregate of the principal and interest on the subject matter, such excess portion shall be null and void by Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, or only to the extent that the above principal and interest are secured by the above principal and interest. The above "security" is not the so-called strong meaning of transfer in the name of defendant 2, but the ownership registered under the name of the defendant 2 is not the so-called transfer domestically and externally, and only the effect of the debt security is the so-called weak meaning of transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da218, Apr. 6, 196). Thus, according to the reasoning that the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant 1 cannot be asserted to the plaintiff 2 before the due date of payment in the name of the plaintiff 16 days, the plaintiff's right of payment in its own name shall not be cancelled.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong