Whether the subrogation right of subordinated mortgagee on the property owned by the property to secure another's property is extended to joint mortgages.

Even if an auction is conducted first on the real estate owned by the debtor among the real estate owned by the debtor and the real estate owned by the debtor which is the object of the joint mortgage, and the joint mortgagee is repaid once by the payment of the auction price, the junior mortgagee on the real estate owned by the debtor shall not exercise the mortgage on the real estate owned by the debtor by subrogation of the joint mortgagee No. 368(2) of the Civil Code.

Articles 368(2) and 481 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeju District Court Order 95Ra3 dated March 25, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds for reappeal

Even if one co-mortgager takes place first of all on the real estate owned by the debtor among the real estate owned by the debtor and the real estate owned by the joint mortgagee, which is the object of the joint mortgage, the junior mortgagee on the real estate owned by the debtor cannot exercise the mortgage on the real estate owned by the joint mortgagee by subrogation of the joint mortgagee No. 1 in accordance with the latter part of Article 368(2) of the Civil Code (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da25417 delivered on May 10, 1994).

According to the records, the Re-Appellants (creditors) established the second priority collective security right for multi-household 301, 85.40 square meters of multi-household 3, 301 and 85.40 square meters of the above real estate owned by the debtor, but the company other than the first priority collective security right (hereinafter referred to as the "non-applicants company"), which was the first priority collective security right, for multi-household 2, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-household 2, the ownership was transferred to non-applicant 2) of the above multi-household 1, which was owned by the non-applicants (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-household 2") as the joint security right, was established, only for the above real estate owned by the debtor, and received the total auction proceeds as the first priority right holder. Accordingly, the Re-Appellants, who was the second priority collective security right for the above real estate owned by the debtor, cannot exercise the right to request the auction of this case as to the real estate.

In the end, the court below's decision of the court of first instance which rejected the re-appellant's request for auction of the real estate of this case is just, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)