The validity requirements of the deposit for repayment

(a) If the obligor and the owner of the claims secured by the right to collateral security and the owner of the claims deposit for payment, for consideration, deliver all the documents to be extinguished at the cancellation of the registration of creation of the right to collateral security, the deposit shall not have the effect of payment unless otherwise stipulated

(b) Where, even if the repayment deposit is based on the principal place of the obligation, the obligee has made a deposit to the effect that, in making the repayment deposit, the obligee cannot receive the deposited article unless the obligee fulfills any condition, even though the obligee does not have any obligation to make any counter-performance or other performance, the repayment deposit shall not be effective unless the obligee accepts it.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 (Attorney Shin Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daesung Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1147 delivered on October 22, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) As to the first and second grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney, the case is examined;

As of November 10, 1962, an agreement by the original defendant on November 10, 1962 that the plaintiff paid a certain amount of million won to the defendant on the day, together with the remaining principal and interest in the past and future, shall be paid in installments until November 20, 1962, and a certain amount of 1,969,00 won until May 10, 1963, respectively. The issuance of the above promissorysory note for this purpose, even if the plaintiff issued and delivered a promissory note to the defendant, is unreasonable because the court below recognized the following facts, and therefore, it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to argue that the above agreement was invalid for the payment of the above monetary obligation. In other words, the court below decided that the above monetary obligation should be paid in installments under the agreement by the defendant on November 10, 1962, and that the plaintiff would not have any effect on the repurchase of the original contract, which was issued to the defendant, within the extent that it was invalid after the conclusion of the agreement.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5;

On November 10, 1962, as the agreement of the original defendant on November 10, 1962, the method of payment of the obligation is corrected, and the sales contract with special agreement for repurchase (the date of redemption is May 10, 1963) was entered into on the same day, and the sale certificate issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on October 31, 1962 was concluded to be null and void, it is unreasonable that the defendant has made the registration of ownership transfer by the above invalidated sale certificate. However, as the plaintiff's letter recognized, the registration is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, the original judgment with this purport is legitimate, and the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant's pecuniary obligation to the defendant as established by the above sales contract with special agreement for repurchase is valid within the extent that the ownership transfer registration of the plaintiff's obligation exceeds the amount of the principal and interest of the defendant's obligation at the time of sale as well as within the limit of 008 of the Civil Act.

(3) As to the ground of appeal No. 6

A deposit for repayment is made because the obligor deposits the object of repayment in the depository and the obligee acquires the right to claim the delivery of the deposited object against the depository, so the deposit is valid. Thus, the obligee's right to claim the delivery of the deposited object and the scope of the original obligee's right to claim the payment of the deposited object should be identical to the obligee's right to claim the payment of the deposited object and the scope of the rights. Thus, even if the object of repayment is in accordance with the principal place of the obligation, if the obligor's deposit for repayment is made without the obligee's obligation to perform any other terms and conditions, the obligee cannot receive the deposited object unless the obligee accepts it, unless the obligee accepts it. The obligee under a loan for consumption has no obligation to cancel the registration of establishment or the registration of transfer of the deposited object as security in exchange for the repayment of the principal obligation to the Defendant. According to the facts recognized by the court below, the Plaintiff cannot deliver the documents under its original name and cancel the registration of creation of the non-party's right to claim the payment under the name of the obligee.

Therefore, this case's ground of appeal is not possible to be employed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)