Where the registration of transfer of ownership pursuant to the reservation for payment in kind becomes null and void, but it is deemed effective within the meaning of the security for sale.

Even if the registration of ownership transfer based on the reservation for payment in substitutes is recognized as null and void by Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Act, if the intention of the parties is deemed to include the intention of the security for sale at the same time, it is justifiable to recognize that the registration is effective at least in

Article 607 of the Civil Act, Article 608 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na3117 delivered on March 27, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na3117 delivered on March 27, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on evidence of the court below, acknowledged that the plaintiff agreed to offer the above debt to the defendant as a substitute payment and did not repay the debt on January 15, 1965 when the plaintiff borrowed several occasions from the defendant from around 1963 to October 1964 and the principal of the loan amount of KRW 965,00 is added to the interest amounting to KRW 4,97,00,000, and the total principal and interest amount is not paid. The plaintiff did not pay the above debt by October 29, 1964, and the defendant did not pay the debt on April 13, 1965 and the defendant did not pay the debt on the above date. Under the above circumstances, the intention of the parties is not included in the promise for substitute payment. Therefore, even if there is no intention of the parties to sell the property under Article 607 of the Civil Act, the court below did not have any inconsistency with the purport of Article 608 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)