Even if the reservation for return of substitute is null and void by Article 607 and Article 608 of this Act, the creditor can dispose of the object in order to exercise the security right after the repayment period, and the debtor can only demand the return of the balance of the loan and the principal and interest of the loan at the above disposal price, so the amount of profit to be returned by the defendant must be calculated on the basis of the value acquired by the repurchase of the actual object.

Even if the reservation for return of substitute is null and void by Article 607 and Article 608 of this Act, the creditor can dispose of the object in order to exercise the security right after the repayment period, and the debtor can only demand the return of the balance of the loan and the principal and interest of the loan at the above disposal price, so the amount of profit to be returned by the defendant must be calculated on the basis of the value acquired by the repurchase of the actual object.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

November 10, 1964 Supreme Court Decision 68Da1654 Decided October 22, 1968

Hyundai Industries Corporation

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na3050 decided July 27, 1972

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 5 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below determined on June 11, 1970 as follows: 7,640,00 won interest rate of 4% per month from the defendant on June 11, 1970; 76,400 Won per annum 5g of the UK owned by the plaintiff as collateral; and 76,400 won per annum 5g of the above loan; if the plaintiff fails to repay the total amount by the due date for payment, it agreed to pay it in kind to the defendant; 4. Thus, the defendant did not pay the total amount to the defendant by the due date for payment; 3.5% of the above bonds as of August 11, 1970 to March 31, 1971; 4.5% of the above bonds as at the time of the above loan in kind, the defendant did not have an obligation to repay the total amount to the plaintiff at least 96,400 won per annum 19,000 won as at the time of the above loan in lots.

However, as of March 31, 1971 after reviewing the evidence adopted by the court below, there is no evidence to find that the Alco bankruptcy of this case did not reach the market price of 190 won per one time. In this point, the court below erred by finding facts without proof. The defendant's disposal of Alco bankruptcy from August 1970 to March 31, 1971 that the market price as of March 31, 1971 was 190 won as of March 31, 197, and the defendant did not reach the market price as of 190 won at the time of the disposition, and it is reasonable that the defendant's disposal of the transferred property was 190 won per 6 months after the conclusion of the judgment, and it is reasonable that the defendant's disposal of the transferred property was 16 months after the conclusion of the judgment, and it is reasonable that the defendant's disposal of the transferred property was 16 months after the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court