Whether the repayment of obligation and the cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the purpose of security are simultaneously performed;

Where the registration of ownership transfer has been made for the purpose of securing debts, the cancellation of such registration shall not be sought unless the debts are first repaid.

Article 536 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (70 Ghana1116)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

With respect to the plaintiff, the defendant (2) received payment of interest from the plaintiff as well as from April 21, 1968 to August 30, 1970 by 50 percent per annum, and at the same time with respect to the real estate entered in the list in attached Form 1, the defendant (2) received payment of interest from the plaintiff as well as from August 30, 1968, on December 31, 1968, the Gwangju District Court received registration office for the cancellation of transfer registration due to sale on April 26, 1968, and the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer registration due to sale on April 29, 1953 as the receipt of the same registry office on April 29, 1968, and the defendant (1) received from the above registry office on December 30, 1967 as the receipt of the above registry office on December 30, 1967 as the cancellation registration procedure for ownership transfer registration due to sale on October 1, 1965.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

Since there is no dispute between the parties that each registration has been made in the future, such as the claim for each real estate in the attached list and the purport of appeal, the real estate in this case shall be presumed to be owned by the defendant, etc. as if it were registered.

However, the plaintiff's legal representative was originally owned by the plaintiff. On August 28, 1966, the plaintiff borrowed 100,000 won from the defendant (1) with the mediation of the non-party 1, the interest rate of 5% per month. The plaintiff delayed the agreement of 3 months around October 1, 1967 when the plaintiff borrowed 10,000 won from the defendant (1), and the defendant (1) forged relevant documents and completed the registration with the plaintiff before the defendant as to the real estate entered in the list No. 1, which was recorded in the list No. 1, and even if the registration is valid, it is difficult to recognize that the registration is invalid because it is difficult to secure the above claim, since the plaintiff borrowed 620,00 won per annum, the interest rate of 50,000 won per annum, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the registration was made in collusion with the non-party 1 (2) as to the above defendant's testimony and its principal and interest in the above case.

The plaintiff's attorney, even if all the registration of this case is valid, shall be deemed to be null and void by Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Act, because the plaintiff's attorney was promised to pay the above principle in lieu of the plaintiff's real estate when the plaintiff did not pay the above principle by April 20, 1968 when he borrowed the above principle from the defendant (2) and it is clear that the price of this case's real estate exceeds the sum of the above principle's real estate's real estate's real estate's market price as 39,90 won at the time of the above principle's market price and 1,19,400 won at the real estate's market price at the above principle's market price. Thus, the defendant (2) is obligated to receive the above principle's above and cancel the registration of this case made before the defendant at the same time, but it is difficult to find that the above witness's testimony or the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 was made in accordance with the promise for payment in lieu of the above principle.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is without merit, and the decision of the court of first instance with the same result is just, and this appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Choi Yong-so (Presiding Judge)