Cases where the principal registration of transfer of ownership on the basis of provisional registration made for the security of claims for the adjusted bonds is deemed valid.

If a provisional registration was made for the purpose of securing a claim and then the claim was converted into an adjusted bond prescribed in the Emergency Order on Economic Stabilization and Growth, but the principal registration was made on the basis of such provisional registration is in violation of Article 13 (2) of the same Order, and thus null and void or the creditor later loses the benefit of the period of this case because the debtor did not pay interest even though he was given a notice of legitimate interest payment in accordance with the Promotion of Enterprise Disclosure Act, so the debtor would not be protected as a controlled bond, so the above transfer registration was eventually converted into a legitimate registration.

§ 13 of the Emergency Decree on Economic Stabilization and Growth

Supreme Court Decision 74Da314 delivered on May 28, 1974

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap3855) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant shall execute the registration procedure for cancellation of provisional registration for the preservation of the right of subscription to sale and purchase, which was made pursuant to No. 48692 of receipt on September 14, 1972 by the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dobong District Court 48692 of receipt on September 14, 1972 and the provisional registration procedure for cancellation of provisional registration for the preservation of the right of subscription to sale and purchase, which was made pursuant to No. 16159 of receipt on April 14, 1972 by the 16159 of the registry office, against the plaintiff.

(1) When real estate stated in the purport of this claim is originally owned by the plaintiff, provisional registration and ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant as stated in the purport of this claim are not disputed between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, and non-party 1 were stated in the above 80-party 1's claim for the above 80-party 1's loan and the above 90-party 2's loan repayment order for the above 90-party 1's loan and the above 9-party 2's loan repayment order for the above 90-party 1's loan and the above 9-party 1's loan repayment order for the above 90-party 1's loan repayment order for the above 90-party 1's loan and the above 9-party 2's loan repayment order for the above 90-party 1's loan repayment order for the above 9-party 1's loan repayment order to the plaintiff.

(2) The plaintiff asserted that the above debt was extinguished because the defendant failed to file a bond registration within the time limit in accordance with the above emergency order. However, as seen above, it is clear that the defendant filed a bond registration on August 9, 1972 (such as above, if the funds borrowed from the defendant were actually used for the non-party 1, it is reasonable that the defendant filed a bond registration with the plaintiff as the debtor.) This argument is without merit. Second, the plaintiff argues that the above transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant as to the real estate should be cancelled because it violated the above emergency order 13 (2) of the above emergency order, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant as to the real estate violated the above emergency order 13 (2) of the above emergency order, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant violated the above provisional order for the purpose of securing the ownership transfer registration, and thus, the defendant's rejection of the above transfer registration with the due interest payment order for the above real estate was made by the defendant as an urgent order for the above adjustment order.

(3) If so, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above registration of the defendant as to the real estate in this case is justified and without merit. The judgment of the court below, which forms the conclusion, is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Heung-si (Presiding Judge)