[2] Where an application or power of attorney is destroyed and a certificate of registration is submitted, whether the registrar has an official duty to verify whether the person liable for registration was authenticated by himself/herself (affirmative), and where the above requirements are not met, measures to be taken by the registrar (=order to correct or dismiss the application)

[2] Where an application or a letter of delegation is submitted due to the destruction of a certificate of completion of registration, a registrar has an official duty to verify whether the person liable for registration was present and has received authentication, and if the person liable for registration fails to meet the above requirements, he/she shall order the required written correction or dismiss the application for registration pursuant to Article 55 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201).

Article 49(1) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “Where a registration certificate concerning the right of a person liable for registration or a notification of completion of registration under Article 68 is destroyed or lost, the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative shall attend the registry: Provided, That this shall not apply where an application is accompanied by two copies of a document verifying that the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative (referring only to an attorney-at-law or certified judicial scrivener) is delegated by the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative on the application, or one copy of a document verifying that the person liable for registration is delegated by the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative

The purport of having a person liable for registration submit a certificate of completion of registration is to prevent false registration and ensure the authenticity of registration by enabling a registration officer to verify whether an applicant who loses an existing right due to registration is a person liable for registration. In an application for registration to submit a certificate of completion of registration, where the certificate of completion of registration is destroyed, it is necessary to verify the person liable for registration identical with the provisions of the above Act in order to secure the authenticity of registration. Where the certificate of completion of registration is destroyed, “official certificate” in the latter part of the proviso of Article 49(1) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act substituting the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative’s duty to attend a registry shall not be notarized on a document confirming that the person liable for registration is a person liable for registration, not on a document confirming that the person liable for registration is a person liable for registration, and

Therefore, where an application or a letter of delegation is submitted due to the destruction of the registration certificate, the registration officer has a duty to perform the registration affairs by confirming whether the person liable for registration was present and has been notarized, and if the person liable for registration fails to meet the above requirements, he/she shall order to correct the necessary document or reject the application for registration pursuant to Article 55 of the

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the recruitment evidence, and determined that the defendant is liable for compensation pursuant to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, since the authentication of power attached to the application for registration of transfer of ownership to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was merely an appearance of the person liable for registration and received by a third party, not an appearance of the person liable for registration, but a third party was not an agent, and thus does not constitute a "official certificate" under the latter part of Article 49 (1) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act. Thus, the competent registrar ordered correction of necessary documents or dismissed the application for registration, although he did not take such measures, there was negligence in the performance of duties that had conducted the registration of transfer of ownership to the above real estate, and due to this, the court below established the right to collateral security and lent money to the registered titleholder

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 49 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act, the legal nature of the registration precedents, the negligence of the registrar on his duties, and

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)