In the event that the ownership was transferred to king's property for the purpose of collateral security and thereafter becomes the State's ownership pursuant to the law, the termination of the collateral and the ownership shall accrue.

Even if the ownership transfer was made for the purpose of securing the obligation at a certain time by the former Act on the Disposal of Yellow Property, the State is bound to succeed to the obligation according to the property, so long as the secured obligation is extinguished by the repayment of the obligation, the State has no right to this property.

Article 1 of the former Yellow Property Disposal Act (Law No. 119, Apr. 8, 1950)

Korea

Defendant 1 and four others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na67 delivered on May 12, 1978

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below's reasoning stated that the non-party 1 was a deceased person of the Nam Young-do, the second half of the 23rd Cho Jong-tae, who was the end of this Article, and that the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 had a huge amount of debt due to the extreme hot spring consumption. At the time of bankruptcy, the second half of this year was the joint guarantor of the above non-party 1 with the permission of the Joseon-do governor, and the above non-party 1 was the above non-party 1's above real estate as collateral, and the above debt was collected from the Joseon-do Bank, and the above debt was collected again from the above non-party 1's house to pay for the above non-party 1's transfer of ownership to the non-party 1, who was the above non-party 1's transfer of ownership to the above non-party 1. The court below's reasoning that the above non-party 1's transfer of ownership to the above non-party 1, including the above real estate held the above real estate under the title trust bonds and the title trust bonds.

2. The judgment below held that the above real estate was entirely sold by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 6 on the ground of the above non-party 1's transfer registration for the above non-party 1's real estate and the above non-party 6's transfer registration for the non-party 1's above real estate under the name of the non-party 1's 5's transfer registration for the non-party 6's transfer to the non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1'

In examining records, we cannot agree with the above decision of the court below and make it impossible to make an error in the evidence preparation or fact-finding which has gone through the process.

The old king's property was owned by the State pursuant to Article 1 of the former Yellow Property Disposal Act, Law No. 119, Apr. 8, 1950, but the name of the king was changed to the king pursuant to Law No. 26, Nov. 8, 1945, and the name of the king was changed to the king pursuant to Law No. 339, Sept. 23, 1954, and the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Law No. 1265, Feb. 9, 1963, the old king's actual property was managed by the king, and even if the king's property was owned by the State, the obligation pursuant to the king's property was naturally succeeded to the property (see Article 2 (3) of the former Yellow Property Disposal Act, which was completely purchased from the 10th anniversary of the above property, and the right of the 15th anniversary of the sale of the property cannot be returned to the 1st century.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)