(a) The case which recognized it as invalid as an unfair juristic act;

B. Whether the provisions of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act apply to check money, check money, obligation or security of guaranteed obligation

A. In a situation where Plaintiff 2 was detained, the Defendant 2 had Defendant 2 acquire the real estate at the market price due to the fall short of 1/10 of the market price, and it is evident that the said Defendant acquired the real estate at the market price. As such, the said agreement cannot be deemed null and void as a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness.

B. The so-called promise to return the substitute under Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Code applies only to the obligation due to the loan for consumption, and it is not applicable to the obligation of the check or the obligation to guarantee it.

Articles 104, 607, and 608 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da92 delivered on May 13, 1975 (Article 104,1347, 234 of the Civil Act, No. 518, 8537 of the Court Gazette)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court (65Ga1368)

The plaintiffs' appeal and preliminary claim are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Defendant 1 is the Busan District Court No. 31692, Dec. 31, 1964; the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on December 29, 1964; Defendant 2 is the registration No. 15175, Jul. 18, 1964; the registration No. 14319, Jul. 2, 1964; and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on July 7, 1964; the registration No. 14319, Jul. 2, 1964; and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on July 18, 1964; the registration No. 15167, Jul. 18, 1964; and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on July 29, 1964; and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on July 24, 1965.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment is the same as the cancellation and claim of the original judgment.

Preliminary original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant 2 received money of KRW 215,00 from the Plaintiffs, and simultaneously implement each procedure for cancellation registration as stated in the purport of the claim.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

As stated in the purport of the claim as to the real estate in the attached list Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that each registration under the name of the Defendants is completed, such as ownership transfer registration and provisional registration as stated in the purport of the claim is without dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim that each of the above registrations is invalid, and first, the real estate in the attached list No. 2 is owned by the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 1 disposes of it arbitrarily by stealing the seals of the plaintiff without the plaintiff's permission, which is maternity, without the plaintiff 1's permission. Although there was no ratification of the above disposal act after the fact that the plaintiff 1 did not believe that the above disposal act was ratified later, the plaintiff 3-2, and the evidence No. 1-2 (each of the plaintiffs is without merit) presumed to be established, since there is no evidence that the plaintiff Kim Young-young prepared the seals of the plaintiff 2, or there is no evidence that the plaintiff 1 did not believe that the above disposal act was conducted by the plaintiff 1.

The following plaintiffs asserted that the above disposal act of the real estate was null and void because they had no dispute over the above real estate price Gap's No. 2.3 (excluding the above portion of evidence No. 4-1) because they had no dispute over the non-party 1's establishment due to the non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's.

However, even if the above agreement as to whether or not the plaintiffs can seek for the cancellation of each of the above registrations in the same defendant's name is null and void as the above agreement has considerably lost fairness, each of the above registrations is valid to the extent of the above registration in this case where each of the above claims is recognized to exist in the plaintiffs, and as long as the defendant has each of the above registrations, the defendant will transfer the ownership to the same defendant as the security right holder in the external relation, and then the purchaser of each of the above registrations from the defendant will acquire the ownership valid. Thus, the defendant 1 who purchased the above contracts before the defendant's purchase is the most in collusion between the defendants, and the defendant's purchase price is null and void, but it is no other reason to recognize that the above transaction price has been nullified than the market price. Thus, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

In other words, the above agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 is null and void because the value of the property right at the time of the agreement is far more than the aggregate amount of the principal of the obligation, as it goes against the provisions of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act, and it is absolutely null and void. Accordingly, each registration under the same name of the defendant, which was made on the basis of the contract, was null and void because each registration under the name of the defendant 1, which was made before the transfer from the same defendant who was an unentitled person, was defective, and the reservation for return of the substitute is applicable only to the obligation due to the loan for consumption. However, in this case, the above agreement is not applicable to the check money obligation and the obligation obligation arising from the loan for consumption. Therefore, the above assertion

Finally, the plaintiffs claim that Defendant 2 seeks the cancellation of each registration in the same name of the same defendant in return for the above debt amounting to KRW 215,000. Thus, since the plaintiff is acknowledged to have not been registered in the name of the third party, the third party, and the name of the defendant 2 is not in the name of the defendant 2, in this case, where the special group's circumstance does not seem to exist, even if he had such obligation with the third party, the performance is not in an impossible condition, and therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, since all of the plaintiffs' claims cannot be delivered without merit, the original judgment with the same conclusion is just, and the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiffs' preliminary claims in the trial are dismissed as well as the plaintiffs' preliminary claims are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of the total costs of the lawsuit.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)