[손해배상(기)][미간행]
[1] In the case of loss of a certificate of registration, the contents and degree of the duty of care required for confirmation of identity as a delegating person under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act conducted by a certified judicial scrivener
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that recognized the liability of the above certified judicial scrivener, etc. for damages sustained by the financial institution since the loan of money was made in trust of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, etc. by the above certified judicial scrivener, etc. on the ground that the certified judicial scrivener entrusted with the application for registration and his clerical staff neglected their duty
[1] Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act / [2] Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Da2549 delivered on January 31, 1989 (Gong1989, 342), Supreme Court Decision 94Da26387 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2780), Supreme Court Decision 95Da45767 delivered on May 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1846), Supreme Court Decision 97Da35771 delivered on November 25, 199 (Gong198Sang, 198Sang, 14) (Gong1999Sang, 109Da36238 delivered on April 27, 199)
Plaintiff Cooperatives (Law Firm Hun, Attorneys Yu Byung-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Dong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na40305 Delivered on January 20, 2006
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
According to the purport of Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, where a certificate of completion of registration is destroyed or lost, the confirmation under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which a certified judicial scrivener, etc. shall, in principle, be conducted on behalf of a registered public official. Thus, a certified judicial scrivener, etc. is obligated to verify whether a person entrusted with an application for registration and a person who is responsible for registration on the registry are the same person or not. Where any circumstance to suspect a person is not discovered because a certified judicial scrivener has a resident registration certificate or a certificate of seal impression submitted or presented in order to verify that he/she is the person or his/her agent, he/she can verify the person only with such certificate, but if there are circumstances to suspect a different in the process of confirmation, he/she shall be obligated to verify the person's identity in detail through several methods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da36238, Apr. 27, 199; 9Da63107, Jul. 28,
The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the admitted evidence. The non-party 2 and the non-party 3, etc., who want to obtain 1 billion won from the plaintiff as collateral of the real estate, were requested to supplement the plaintiff's employees on the ground that the non-party 2 did not issue the certificate of personal seal impression at the plaintiff's new training point. At the time, the defendant 2 was aware that there was a request for supplementation. At the time, there were 11 or more times, including the plaintiff's new training point and the non-party 2, and the defendant 2 did not know that the non-party 1 had a duty to obtain 1 billion won as collateral for the above real estate, and that the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 were not negligent in issuing the certificate of personal seal impression, and that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not negligent in issuing the certificate of personal seal impression at the time of the plaintiff's new training point. In light of all circumstances, the court below found that the non-party 1 and the defendant 2 were not guilty.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)