Law Firm Barun, Attorney Park Jae-soo

Attorney Park Jae-hwan

2. Korea;

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

Litigation Performers New Flags, Gambling

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

In this case, when a certified judicial scrivener handles the affairs of application for registration delegated by a certified judicial scrivener and examines the application for registration, the registration of ownership transfer was completed by a forged document because the registrar neglected his/her duty of care to verify the identity of the person liable for registration and to verify the establishment of the formal authenticity of attached documents, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed. On the ground that the Plaintiff incurred damages by lending the money that he/she believed to have acquired the miscellaneous mortgage based on the registration of ownership transfer, and then cancelling the mortgage thereafter, the Plaintiff is a matter of seeking compensation against the Defendants, who

2. Presumed factual basis

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") is listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer") without the resident registration number on January 6, 1983 or on January 11, 1983 ** 2 * * * - the registration of ownership transfer in the name of C in the address of Eul.

2) C (the date of February 16, 1951) opened from D’s name is the real title holder C (the date of February 16, 201) who is a certified judicial scrivener for the Haman on April 2014, 201, and as such, the Defendant B, a certified judicial scrivener for the Haman on April 11, 201, entrusted the person responsible for registration with the application for registration of transfer of ownership for sale on April 11, 2014, under the presumption that he/she is the real title holder C (the date of birth);

3) On May 2, 2014, Defendant B filed an application for registration with the Suwon District Court’s registration and C’s above lapsy, certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale, abstract of resident registration record card, copy of the land register of this case, and copy of the driver’s license, etc. submitted to Defendant B and accepted the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the loss of the certificate of completion of the registration. 4) The documents except the certified copy of the Resident’s resident registration number in the application for registration and the attached documents were indicated as C’s birth on February 16, 1951, where C’s resident registration number was the largest owner. However, the certified copy of the Resident’s registration number was stated as 32****1*******). Meanwhile, C’s abstract of resident registration record card was recorded as the address and transfer date of C’s actual owner under the name of C** * 2* 196, 197 -14 -1976.

5) On May 2, 2014, the competent registrar entered the registration of ownership transfer in the E’s name from C without knowing that he/she is an application for registration by forgery documents.

B. On May 2, 2014, the instant land was registered for the establishment of a mortgage under the name of No. 1,200,000,000 of the maximum debt amount, and the first-order establishment of a mortgage under the name of No. 1,20,000,000 of the debtor F, and the second-order establishment registration under the name of the Plaintiff E was completed on June 9, 2014. The said application for the establishment of a mortgage was also conducted on behalf of the Defendant B.

2) On June 20, 2014, the registration and registrar of the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site Board and the instant land E

It was notified that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff and the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the NongHyup Bank was made by the forged document.The registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the NongHyup Bank was cancelled on July 23, 2014, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the plaintiff was cancelled on August 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Issues of the instant case

A. 1) Whether Defendant B’s fault (related to 1 - 1) was attributable to a registry officer (related to 1 - 2)

(b) Scope of compensation for damage ( Category 2);

4. Determination

A. 1) key issue 1 - 1 (whether Defendant B was negligent)

A) The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant B did not state the resident registration number of the landowner, but instead did not state the certificate of registration, and instead did so by delegation of the application affairs for ownership transfer registration of this case to be prepared by the person concerned without the certificate of registration, and did so by negligence that neglected the ordinary duty of care in the comparison of attached documents and in the preparation of the confirmation document.

B) Defendant B’s assertion

Defendant B confirmed the normal issuance of a certificate of personal seal for sale sent by facsimile from C using a certificate of personal seal impression for sale, a certificate of personal seal impression for sale of resident registration cards, and a serial number for issuance of an abstract of resident registration cards, and confirmed that C is a legitimate seller by investigating whether C is identical with the address and resident registration number of the copy of the register provided by F, who requested the application for the ownership transfer registration of this case and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, and the address and resident registration number of the certified copy of the forest register provided by F, who requested the application for the registration of ownership transfer of this case and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage. In addition, Defendant B neglected the duty of care to confirm the identity of the owner or registered

shall not be subject to an appeal.

C) Determination

(1) Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act provides that a certified judicial scrivener shall verify the identity of an applicant by submitting or presenting a certificate prepared pursuant to statutes, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, or by any other similar method. As seen earlier, a registrar requested to process a large amount of application for registration promptly and appropriately shall have a duty of care to determine whether the applicant is a legitimate holder of a right or an obligor of an application for registration, or his/her agent. In determining whether the applicant is a legitimate applicant, a certified judicial scrivener shall have a duty of care to verify the formal authenticity of the application for registration and attached documents, a register, a seal imprint, etc. In the event of loss of a certificate of registration, the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) which a certified judicial scrivener destroys a certificate of registration. Thus, it is reasonable to ascertain whether the applicant is a person delegated by a person delegated by a certified judicial scrivener and a person responsible for registration in the register is a person responsible for registration.

(2) The certified copy of the forest register of the instant land received by Defendant B from Defendant C (F) was a copy of the copy of the forest register of the instant land, and was forged by entering the resident registration number (********************) of C who pretended to be the owner. The certified copy of the forest register, which was directly issued by Defendant B, entered the resident registration number of the real owner C, in the document to be attached to the application for registration, may be recognized by taking into account all the arguments as a whole, either there is no dispute between the parties, or as set forth in subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Defendant B neglected the duty of care to observe the details stated in the copy of the forest register attached to the application for registration delegated by C while handling the application for registration, and the fact that the copy of the resident registration card attached to the attached document was forged instead of the applicant himself/herself. The circumstance that C’s resident registration number, the owner of the land of this case, is not recorded in the register, and Defendant B did not have the certificate of completion of registration, and Defendant B did not prepare the document of confirmation. In particular, it is necessary to verify the identity through mutual comparison in handling the delegated affairs of the application for registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case. The fact that Defendant B did not compare the resident registration number of the forest register attached to the application by the certified judicial scrivener office, which was issued directly by the certified judicial scrivener office, with the need for the confirmation of resident registration number and the document attached to the application for registration, cannot be deemed as necessary for the confirmation of the person himself/herself as a certified judicial scrivener.

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The registration officer in charge of the application for the registration of ownership transfer of this case exercised his ordinary duty of care by the average registration officer in charge of the registration, but was different from that of the abstract of resident registration card, and thus, the C resident registration number of the certified copy of the forestry register is not the same person as C who is the actual owner of the application, but the abstract of the resident registration card is not the same person as C, but can easily be known that the abstract of the resident registration card is a forged document, and thus, the applicant

B) Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Article 55 Subparag. 11 and Article 56(2) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act provides "where the indication of a person whose name is recorded in the register is inconsistent with the land cadastre, the forest land cadastre, or the building register," but the Registration of Real Estate Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201) provides that "where the indication of an application information or real estate in the registration record is inconsistent with the land cadastre, the forest land cadastre, or the building register, the former Registration of Real Estate Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201)" (Article 29 subparag. 11), excluding such ground for rejection, only "only a ground exists for rejection." In light of the legal principles that the applicant's personal information is not proved with the fact that the applicant's personal information is different from that of the forest land cadastre or the forest land register, it cannot be said that the applicant has a duty to verify the personal information in the forest register that he/she had failed to exercise ordinary duty by the registration officer.

C) Determination

(1) A registrar has the authority to investigate the formal legality of an application for registration, and thus, shall examine whether the applicant is a right holder, obligor, or his/her agent of a legitimate application for registration. In such examination, whether the document to be attached is formally authentic or not, the document to be attached, the register, the trade comparison of the seal, etc., shall be determined by the document to be attached thereto, and if it is deemed that the document is an application for registration by a forged document, the applicant has a duty of care to reject the application.

(2) In light of such legal principles, the current Real Estate Registration Act applicable to this case excludes cases where the indication of a registered titleholder stated in the register does not coincide with that of the land cadastre, the forestry register or the building register, and even if the ownership of the registered land does not prove matters concerning the owner of the registered land, it cannot be deemed that the resident registration number in the forest register necessary for the application for registration is not the content of the forest register to be examined and verified in order to determine whether the registration officer is formally authentic in the attached documents. It does not constitute any inconsistency with the formal examination authority to impose a duty of care to ensure that registration based on forged documents, etc. is not completed by comparing the content of the forest register with the content of the attached documents. (It is not acceptable for a registrar to accept an application for registration even if the resident registration number in the forest register is found different from that of the application and other attached documents, and there is a circumstance to suspect the identity of the owner, and to accept the registration without issuing an order of correction, even if the indication of the registered titleholder is different from that of the registered titleholder under the registration record, it should be excluded.

Considering that the resident registration number of the land owner of this case is not entered in the register, it is necessary to verify the identity through mutual comparison of the resident registration number of the attached documents. In particular, Article 4(1) of the Guidelines on Forgery of Registry (Regulations No. 1377) provides that the registrar shall thoroughly investigate the application and attached documents, such as transfer of ownership, correction of the right, and registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage without attaching the registration information or registration certificate on the land, when there are special circumstances, such as the application for registration of the transfer of ownership, correction of the right, and registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage without attaching the registration information or registration certificate, etc., the registrar of the application for registration of ownership transfer of this case shall be deemed to be negligent in the course of performing his duties who accepted the application without rejecting the application by neglecting it.

B. Key 2 (Scope of Compensation for Damages) Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff believed that the instant registration of ownership transfer in the name of E is valid, and trusted to obtain the right to collateral security based on the registration of ownership transfer from E, and incurred loss due to the cancellation of the right to collateral security after lending KRW 131,050,000 to E on June 9, 2014.

A person who actually lends money to E is not the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the right to collateral security, but the profit-making district. Since the profit-making district was aware that the registration of ownership transfer was made due to illegal causes prior to the lending of money, it cannot be said that the damage was incurred due to the belief that the registration of ownership transfer

3) Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Since the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on June 11, 2014, the registration procedure for the establishment of a new mortgage was completed, a proximate causal link between the damages and the mistake of the registrar that the Plaintiff incurred as it was unrelated to the completion of the registration and that it was incurred by the Plaintiff on June 9, 2014.

4) Whether the Plaintiff’s monetary loan is determined

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8, and 9, Eul requested a loan of the land of this case as collateral, and on June 9, 2014, the plaintiff decided to lend 150,000,000 won to Eul for the interest rate of February 5, 2014, and on July 8, 2014, the repayment period of the mortgage creation registration was completed, and the loan of 131,050,000 won was actually deducted from the interest rate of the same day, to the account of Eul after deposit into the account of the plaintiff's father, his/her father. On the contrary, there is no evidence to support the defendant Eul's assertion that the profit-making district other than the plaintiff is the actual lender, or that the establishment registration of the mortgage was completed by a false declaration of intent that the plaintiff did not lend the actual money.

B) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, according to the Defendants’ negligence and the causal relationship between damages (1) and the fault on the part of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained damages that caused the cancellation of the right to collateral security by relianceing on the entry of the certified copy of the registry concerning the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E, and reliance on the acquisition of a security right based on the registration of transfer of ownership.

Since it appears that there exists a substantial causal relationship between the negligence of Defendant B and the agencies affiliated with the Defendant Republic of Korea, which made it possible to complete the registration of ownership transfer, and the above damage. (2) There is no evidence to deem that the profit-making district of the Plaintiff was known prior to the Plaintiff’s lending of the Plaintiff’s money. The registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on June 9, 2014, the lease date, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 11, 2014 (the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name was taken on June 11, 2014) of the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage as the Defendant’s assertion in the Republic of Korea. Even if the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 11, 2014, there is no proximate causal relationship between the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the negligence of the Defendants on the part of the Defendants and the fact that the Plaintiff acquired a security

C) Sub-decisions

The Plaintiff’s ordinary damages incurred to the Plaintiff, who was a mortgagee, due to the trust in the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage and the cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage after lending money to the Plaintiff, are equivalent to the amount of money lent to E within the scope of the maximum debt amount within the scope of the value of the instant land, which is the object mortgaged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da27623, 27630, Apr. 9, 199). According to the purport of the statement and the entire pleadings as stated in subparagraph 1, the standard market value of the instant land within three parcels of land can be known to the Plaintiff as the grounds for reimbursement of damages and the amount of damages incurred to the Plaintiff within the scope of the maximum debt amount and the amount of damages incurred to the Plaintiff.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 131,050,00 and the damages amounting to KRW 131,00,00,000 from June 9, 2014, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, Defendant B, to August 28, 2014, Defendant Republic of Korea, to the date of August 27, 2014, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until August 27, 2014, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment. Accordingly, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages amounting to each of the Defendants of this case as to the Plaintiff’s claims for the damages amounting

Judges Lee Dong-young

Judges, Senior Superintendent and Staff