The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was not liable for cancellation of the above plaintiff's registration due to the plaintiff's failure to verify the above registration's establishment registration, because the plaintiff lent 90,000,000 won to the non-party's non-party's name named non-party 2, who was the real estate broker's introduction of the court below, to the non-party 1, and delegated the defendant, a certified judicial scrivener of the above non-party 2 with the establishment registration for the collateral. The non-party 3, an employee of the defendant's office, presented the above non-party 2's seal impression book, resident registration certificate, a certified copy, and a certificate of non-party 2's seal for the establishment of a real estate to the extent that it is impossible to verify the authenticity of the above registration's establishment registration, and the above non-party 2 was not liable for cancellation of the above plaintiff's registration's establishment registration due to the above non-party 3's failure to verify's name or non-party 2's title.

2. Article 49(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 4422, Dec. 14, 1991); Article 49(1) provides that where the certificate of completion of registration concerning the right of the person liable for registration is destroyed, the person liable for registration or his legal representative shall attend the registry; however, this shall not apply where two copies of a document confirming that the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative is delegated by the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative on the application form are attached to the application form. According to Article 49(2) of the same Act and Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1185, Dec. 30, 191), where the certificate of completion of registration concerning the right of the person liable for registration is destroyed and the person liable for registration or his/her legal representative attends the registry, the person liable for registration shall confirm the identity thereof with the resident registration certificate, passport, driver's license, etc., and a copy of the certificate shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Therefore, in principle, such confirmation by a certified judicial scrivener, etc. is conducted on behalf of a registered public official. As such, a certified judicial scrivener, etc. is obligated to verify the same person when the person delegated an application for registration and the person who is responsible for registration on the registry are the same person. However, unless there are circumstances to suspect the result of confirmation, it cannot be said that there is an obligation to devise more specific methods and investigate the same in order to verify the identity, except for preparing a document for confirmation (this document includes the address, name, resident registration number, etc. of the person responsible for registration, and attaching a copy of the resident registration certificate, passport copy, and driver's license, a copy of the vehicle, etc. used to verify the identity, and affix a seal. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13682, Jan. 15, 1992>

As revealed in the facts and records acknowledged by the court below in this case, if the defendant, as a certified judicial scrivener, received an application for the establishment registration of the neighboring real estate from the non-party's non-party's non-party's name named as the person liable for registration through the non-party's non-party 3 who is his employee, and confirmed that the above non-party's resident registration certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, etc. presented by the above person liable for registration, the above non-party's resident registration certificate, etc. was forged to the extent that it is difficult to confirm whether the above non-party's personal registration certificate, etc. is true. As shown in the records, if the above non-party's personal name was recognized as being shown to the above age in the above resident registration certificate, and

Although the judgment of the court below is inadequate in its reasoning, it is just in conclusion with the party members, and it seems to be justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 49 of the Real Estate Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)