Establishment of the right to collateral security and approval of the president of the Economic Planning Agency with respect to the vessels built as part of the security money under the Act on the Operation and Management of Claim Funds

The registration of establishment of a new mortgage is invalid since the establishment of a new mortgage on the vessels of this case, which was constructed as part of the construction fund by the Act on the Operation and Management of Claim Fund, was not approved by the president of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in light of the purpose of the said Act.

Article 18 of the Act on the Operation and Management of Claim Funds

Plaintiff

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Daejeon District Court (71 Gohap122, 72 Gohap60) in the first instance trial

1. Revocation of the part of the original judgment against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

2. It is confirmed that the items listed in the attached list No. 2 are owned by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

3. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2’s counterclaim claim and Defendant 1’s appeal are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising from Defendant 1’s appeal is assessed against each of the following subparagraphs: (a) between Defendant 1, Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant 2; and (b) between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative, as the purport of the claim on the principal lawsuit, has implemented the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which became the Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1 of the obligor, as the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant ; Plaintiff hereinafter the same) received from the Daejeon District Court’s Daejeon District Court No. 4 on May 27, 1971, with respect to the vessels listed in the attached list No. 1. 4 on May 27, 1971.

Defendant 2 (Plaintiff Counterclaim; hereinafter Defendant 2) confirmed that the items listed in the attached Table 2 are owned by the Plaintiff. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants, and Defendant 2, as a counterclaim claim, delivers to Defendant 2 the items listed in the attached Table 2 to the Plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and the declaration of provisional execution are sought respectively.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the same judgment as the disposition, and the defendant 1 shall revoke the part against the defendant 1 in the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. Determination on the main claim

First of all, we examine the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1. There is no dispute between the parties that the above entry in the list No. 1 and the establishment of a mortgage registration under the defendant 1 were completed. In full view of the testimony of the non-party 2 of the court below as well as the fact-finding results and arguments about the YY branch at the court below, the plaintiff's act of using the above information No. 1,378,10, 2,506, 936, and the plaintiff's own funds of 690,000, 36 tons constructed under the above list No. 4,575,046, and 600, and 36 tons of the above establishment of a mortgage registration under the Act on the Management and Operation of Funds of the plaintiff and the establishment of a mortgage registration for the purpose of using the above 1,000, 197, the plaintiff's act of using the above information cannot be deemed as part of the construction and management of the plaintiff's property under the name of Daejeon District Court No. 1, as part of the above.

Then, even if the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 was examined, Gap evidence 3-2 through 19-1 to 4-3, Eul evidence 3-4 and 7, and Gap evidence 5-1, which can be established by the testimony of the non-party 3 at the court below level, as to the non-party 2's request against the defendant 2, the plaintiff's above-mentioned vessel was constructed on behalf of the non-party 1, the plaintiff's 2, 1, 4, and 5's testimony and oral argument that the non-party 2's above-mentioned vessel's above delivery of subsidy and other funds and the purchase of shipbuilding materials and the application for the completion of the above vessel's construction, etc. The plaintiff's above vessel's above stated items were not constructed on behalf of the non-party 1, who were his children, and the defendant's above 1 and the non-party 2's above stated items were purchased on behalf of the non-party 1 to the above defendant 2's above vessel's above 10-year.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

The items in the attached list No. 2 are the Plaintiff’s ownership. The fact that the items were loaded on the instant ship owned by the Plaintiff and possessed by the Plaintiff, and the above lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant should be seen as a security for transfer to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 400,000 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As seen above, Defendant 2 may seek delivery of the items in the attached list No. 2 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation by the Plaintiff, the obligor, and seek delivery of the items in the attached list No. 2 on the basis of the ownership on the premise that the items are one’s own property. However, Defendant 2’s counterclaim claim cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the plaintiff's principal claim is reasonable, and the counterclaim by defendant 2 is without merit, the part against defendant 1 among the plaintiff's principal claim in the original judgment is just, and since the part against defendant 2 among the plaintiff's principal claim in the original judgment, which differs from the original judgment, and the part against the defendant 2 among the plaintiff's principal claim in the original lawsuit, which differs from the original judgment, is unfair, the unfair part is revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal as to this part is reasonable, and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal as to the above party's part is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the part arising from the defendant 1's appeal as to the above party's part is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, the part arising from the defendant 2's appeal as to

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)