The effective date of the extinguishment of an obligation where ownership of the real estate is provided by payment in lieu of the original payment in substitution.

Payment in lieu of the original benefit shall become effective as a result of the actual performance of another benefit.

Articles 466 and 185 of the Civil Act

Na Jin Jin

E. E. E. P. P. lodging

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na286 delivered on February 13, 1963

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 4 by the plaintiff's agent is examined.

In accordance with the original judgment, the court below held that the fact that the plaintiff on August 7, 1961, as to the real estate in this case, was the buyer on the same day, and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant was recorded on the grounds of the purchase and sale between the original defendant on the same day on the same day, and that there is no dispute between the parties. The court below held that "The plaintiff may recognize the fact that the claim of the non-party Bag, the creditor of the real estate, was extinguished by payment in lieu of the land and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant was completed on January 18, 1961, by giving up the ownership and the right to cultivate the land in this case on January 18, 1961."

However, in order to take effect of the expiration of payment in kind, it is necessary for the obligor to carry out the payment in kind instead of the original payment in kind. Therefore, in case where the ownership transfer of the real estate is the ownership transfer of the real estate, the registration of ownership transfer is absolutely necessary under the new Civil Act. In addition, according to each testimony of the first instance court Mandu-dong Kim Jong-hwan, which is admitted as evidence by the court below, the Plaintiff issued the Defendant a certificate No. 1 in January 18, 1961, and the payment date of the original obligation was postponed for 20 days. Thus, it is difficult to view that the original obligation was extinguished upon completion of the payment in kind in January 18, 1961, and even though the original obligation was extinguished, it cannot be viewed that the court below's decision that the original obligation was extinguished as the payment in kind is unlawful, and there

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by omitting an explanation of other grounds of appeal.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)