Whether the previous owner who has created the right to collateral security may also file a claim for the cancellation of the registration of creation of the right to collateral security on the ground that the former owner has extinguished the secured obligation.

In the event that the ownership of the real estate is transferred to a third party after the establishment of the right to collateral security, the current owner may request the cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground of the extinguishment of the secured obligation based on his/her ownership. However, the former owner, as a party to the right to collateral security contract, may seek the cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground of the extinguishment of the right to collateral security, since the former owner, as a party to the right to collateral security contract, has a contractual right to seek the cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground of the extinguishment of

Articles 186 and 369 of the Civil Act, Articles 28 and 29 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1350 Decided April 26, 1962 (Gong1988, 1267) (Gong1267) 86Da1332 Decided September 13, 198 (Gong1988, 1267) 92Da1353 Decided September 14, 193 (Gong193Ha, 2734)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na52134 delivered on December 30, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 27, 1989 and December 14 of the same year, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the ground that the obligation under security was extinguished due to repayment of the obligation under the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage and the deposit for repayment, on the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff. The court below determined that the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the ground that at the time of the claim is limited to the interested parties on the register having a direct legal interest due to the owner or cancellation registration of the real estate at the time of the claim. The court below held that on April 1, 1990, the plaintiff sold the real estate of this case on April 1, 1990, which was prior to the time of the claim that the obligation under each of the above mortgage was extinguished and made the ownership transfer registration was lost, and that the plaintiff cannot be found to have any direct interest in the above registration of the establishment of each new mortgage.

However, in the instant case, if the ownership of the real estate is transferred to a third party after the establishment of the right to collateral security has been made, the current owner is entitled to file a claim for the cancellation of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground of the extinction of the secured obligation based on his ownership. However, since the former owner of the right to claim the cancellation of the establishment of the right to collateral security upon the extinguishment of the right to collateral security as a party to the right to claim the cancellation of the establishment of the right to collateral security, the former owner of the right to claim the cancellation of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground of the extinguishment of the right to collateral security based on such contractual right is reasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu132, Sep. 13, 198; Supreme Court Decision 92Da1353, Sep. 14, 1993).

On April 26, 1962, the Supreme Court Decision 4294Nois 1350 Decided April 26, 1962 decided to abolish it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Chief Justice Park Jong-young (Presiding Justice) of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Justice) Park Jong-young, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho,