2. Whether there is any negligence in the reliance of a statement in the register where such statement has been traded with reliance;

2. The real estate registration function is to make public notification of the fact that any change in real rights is true and correct, barring any special circumstance, the registration shall not be deemed to have been negligent in the trust of the registration.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 500,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from September 17, 1971 to the date of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in the first and second instances.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The costs of lawsuit were assessed against the Defendants and declared provisional execution.

Therefore, the reason why the above guarantee certificate is to be submitted is that it is necessary to confirm the identity of the applicant for registration and the registered titleholder and prevent the fraudulent registration, instead of the certificate of registration in possession of the certificate of registration.

Therefore, the above guarantee is that the applicant for registration and the title holder of registration are the same, and that the application for registration was made according to the will of the registered titleholder with the duty of due care as a good manager. If a bona fide third party who made a transaction with the belief that the registration was made as a result of the failure of the above care and the registration was caused by a mistake in the contents of the guarantee, and as a result, a bona fide third party who made a fraudulent transaction with the belief that the registration was made due to the failure of the above care, the damage does not have a substantial relation to the guarantee due to negligence. Therefore, the guarantor cannot be exempted from the liability

1. The Plaintiff: (a) obtained a copy of Nonparty 1’s certificate of registration No. 1; (b) obtained a signature No. 2; (c) obtained a signature No. 3; (d) obtained a signature No. 1’s certificate of registration No. 4; and (e) obtained a signature No. 1’s registration No. 1’s signature No. 4; and (c) obtained a signature No. 1’s signature No. 9; and (d) obtained a false registration No. 1’s signature No. 7; and (e) obtained a signature No. 1’s signature No. 9; and (e) obtained a false registration No. 1’s signature No. 4; and (e) obtained a false registration No. 1’s signature No. 9; and (e) obtained a false registration No. 1’s signature No. 7; and (e) obtained a false registration No. 1’s signature No. 9; and (e) obtained a new registration No. 1’s signature No. 1 and No. 4’s new registration No. 7.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 4 is a false registration made because the Defendants merely confirmed the conformity between the registration titleholder and the registration obligor, without confirming whether the application for registration was actually made according to the intention of the registration titleholder. The act of guarantee by mistake is not a causal relationship with the damages suffered by the Plaintiff by lending money on the premise that the above registration was conducted as a result and is made as a security for the registered real estate. In this case, the scope of damages suffered by the Plaintiff is deemed to affect the collection by failing to acquire the secured real estate, and therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the amount of KRW 500,000,000 from the Plaintiff to Nonparty 4 and damages for delay after the date on which the damage occurred.

As long as the Plaintiff did not actually obtain registration of the acquisition of the security right to the above real estate from Nonparty 4, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants cannot file a claim for damages of this case against the Defendants. However, as acknowledged above, inasmuch as it is acknowledged that there is a causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s damage caused by lending the money to Nonparty 4 on the premise that the false registration of Nonparty 4 and the registration was genuine and that the registration was acquired as a result of the guarantee by mistake of the Defendants, it would not affect the Plaintiff’s right to damages due to the above loan even if the registration of the acquisition of the security right was completed, even if there is no reason for the Defendants’ above assertion.

In addition, the defendants argued that the damages incurred by the loan of the plaintiff were caused by negligence in which the plaintiff believed only the registration of the non-party 4 and confirmed the process of acquiring the registration name of the non-party. Thus, the defendants are not liable to compensate the plaintiff's damages, and even if the non-party 4 was negligent in causing the plaintiff's damages, the defendants should take into account the above plaintiff's negligence. However, since the real estate registration functions as a public announcement of the fact that the change in real rights is true and correct, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiff's trust, and there is no reason or data to deem that there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiff's damage caused by the loan of the above money, the above assertion also cannot be accepted (the plaintiff's lending of money to the non-party 4 with the knowledge that the address of the non-party 4's certificate of personal seal impression recognized above was wrong, it is not related to the plaintiff's damage of this case. This is because if the non-party 4's real ownership of the real property of this case is in this case, the way

For the above reasons, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from September 17, 1971 to the full payment date on the record that the gold 50,000,000 won and the gushes in this case were the next day after the notice was delivered to the defendant 1 (the plaintiff is liable to pay interest for delay from the day after the notice was served to the end date in this case). Since it is interpreted that the plaintiff's intention to claim for delay from the day after the notice was served to the end of this case is that anyone among the defendants who are jointly and severally liable for the claim in this case, the plaintiff's claim for delay from the day after the first arrival date is served to each of the defendants who are jointly and severally liable for the claim in this case is calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified and the judgment rejecting the plaintiff's claim is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal against the costs of lawsuit is revoked, and the provisional execution is subject to Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Act and the order.

Judge Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)