A. In a case where a principal registration based on a provisional registration is completed in accordance with the lawsuit telephone damage after making a provisional registration along with a provisional registration for the purpose of securing bonds, whether the registration of ownership transfer shall be deemed as a security for transfer of a weak meaning

(b) Validity of damage by filing lawsuits;

(c) The rate of damages for delay, where only the due date and principal of the obligation are set and no provision is provided for the damages for delay after the due date for payment.

A. If a provisional registration has been made for the purpose of securing a claim and a debt has been repaid within a certain time, then the above provisional registration shall be cancelled, and if the principal registration based on the provisional registration is completed based on the telephone for filing a lawsuit because the debtor did not repay the debt, then the transfer of ownership shall be deemed as the meaning of transfer for security, which means a weak meaning of promising the so-called settlement procedure that has been completed by means of a means to exercise the security right to the above claim.

(b) The filing telephone of a lawsuit is a judicial compromise that has the same effect as that of a final judgment and has the same effect as that of a final judgment, so if such settlement is made, the rights and duties relationship based

C. In case where the claim for damages for delay is determined only on the due date and the principal of the claim, and there is no provision on the damages for delay after the due date, in principle, the damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of five percent per annum under the Civil Act after the due date has

A. Article 372 of the Civil Code 206(c) of the Civil Procedure Act. Articles 379 and 397 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu62 decided Nov. 10, 1987 (Gong1988, 81) 90Da9780 decided Oct. 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2671), 91Da35175 decided Jan. 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 894). Supreme Court Decision 80Da2645 decided Aug. 25, 1981 (Gong1981, 14295), 84Da207 decided Aug. 14, 1984 (Gong1984, 1548), 85Meu1792 decided Apr. 19, 198 (Gong198, 492, 1984, 1984, 1986Da19864, Apr. 16, 1986)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Law Firm Dong-dong Office, Attorney Lee Ba-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na23375 delivered on July 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If a provisional registration has been made for the purpose of securing a claim and then a debt is repaid within a certain time, the above provisional registration shall be cancelled, and if the debtor fails to repay the debt, but the principal registration based on the provisional registration is completed in accordance with the telephone system for filing a lawsuit, then the above provisional registration shall be deemed as a transfer of security in a weak sense that it was made as a means to enforce a security right to the above claim, and if the principal registration based on the provisional registration has been completed in accordance with the above provisional registration due to the debtor's failure to repay the debt, the above transfer of ownership shall be deemed as the meaning of transfer of security (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da9780 delivered on October 8, 191; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu661 delivered on December 26,

In the same purport, the court below recognized that the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case, which was made in accordance with the judgment of the court below, was the object of security, and ordered the cancellation of the provisional registration and the transfer registration on the ground of the repayment of secured debt, is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or lack of reason due to the violation of the rules of evidence, which is alleged by the theory of lawsuit, and thus, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion of payment in kind, so it cannot be deemed that

2. On the second ground for appeal

The telephone for filing a lawsuit is a judicial compromise with the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and thus, if the settlement is made, the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous legal relationship is terminated (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1792 delivered on January 19, 198). If only the principal of the debt and the principal of the debt are determined under the clause of the telephone for filing a lawsuit and no provision is provided for the damages for delay after the due date, in principle, the damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed under the Civil Act after the due date has been due (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu20481 delivered on June 8,

In the same purport, it is just that the court below recognized the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant as damages for delay at the rate of 80,000,000 per annum from the day following the due date under the reconciliation clause as set forth in the lawsuit telephone for the plaintiff's claim, and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to the violation of the rules of evidence, which is alleged by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is not reasonable

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the defendant did not assert that "the cost of provisional registration or settlement should be paid as the secured debt of this case," which he cited as the place of appeal until the closing of argument at the court below's trial. However, the above telephone call for the plaintiff's claim should be deemed as the performance of payment in kind, and even if not, the damages for delay should be paid at the rate of 5% per annum with respect to the original claim, which is not the interest rate of 5% per annum, and if not so, it is clear that the defendant asserted that only the plaintiff's tax should be paid on behalf of the plaintiff, and that the defendant did not assert and prove the detailed details of the expenses that he spent.

Therefore, the court below's decision that did not treat it as a separate claim for the secured debt is just and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)