Main Issues
The limit to be useful for the registration after the extinction of the secured obligation after the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security.
Summary of Judgment
A. The registration stipulated in Article 177 of the former Civil Act is sufficient if the current state of true right with respect to real estate is indicated, and its effect is not affected even if there is a difference between the actual process and the pattern in the process or pattern.
(b)In the case of a collateral security, the secured claim is secured by the claim at the time agreed upon in the contract to establish the right of collateral and may be extended by the agreement between the parties.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 177 of the former Civil Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
1 other than this Regulation
Defendant-Appellant
Korea Coal Corporation
Judgment of the lower court
Busan District Court Decision 60No220 delivered on September 14, 1960
Reasons
The lower court determined that the agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement is not effective because, at the time of concluding the agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, the president of the non-party company agreed to use the same content as the original mortgage agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable, as long as the agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement existed, the agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff was made for the sake of securing the obligations created by the coal transfer agreement, and that the agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff is invalid, as otherwise stated in the lower judgment, even if the agreement was concluded on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement and on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement on the establishment of a new collateral security agreement is invalid and void.
Justices Choi Ma-mo (Presiding Justice)