1. On the first ground for appeal

The main point of this part of the final appeal is that a certified judicial scrivener entrusted with an application for registration based on the written judgment carries out the delegated affairs, or a registrar based on the application documents for registration attached to the written judgment has a duty of due care to search them through the Internet in order to understand whether the written judgment is forged or not, but it cannot be said that a certified judicial scrivener or a registrar has such duty of due care. Therefore, the ground of final appeal in this part cannot be accepted.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Although a registrar may be deemed to have an official duty to reject an application for registration filed in a forged document after reviewing the submitted document, he/she shall be deemed to have an official duty to reject the application. However, it shall not be deemed that there was negligence by the registrar in all cases where he/she accepted the application for registration, even though he/she could have been aware that the document was forged, even though the average registrar in charge of registration was ordinarily in the process of such examination, he/she could have exercised his/her ordinary duty to pay attention. From this point of view, it shall be deemed that there was negligence in a case where he/she did not reject the application for registration without examining it. From this point of view, it shall be deemed that the registrar in receipt of an application for registration based on a final judgment shall be deemed that the document necessary for the application for registration was submitted, whether the document was prepared in full, whether the document itself was prepared, and whether the indication of the party and the order of the final judgment supporting the legitimacy of the application for registration, and that the document was conducted in full more than 20,000 if the document was prepared and stated in a specific form of judgment is not clearly known.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, although the final judgment, which is a document attached to the registration of this case, is different from the error and general preparation practices as stated in its holding, such circumstance alone alone does not make it impossible to determine that the above judgment was forged, and it cannot be said that the registrar has a duty of care to verify more detailedly the forgery of the judgment attached to the above judgment. In light of the error and difference in the above judgment, it is difficult to deem that there was an objective circumstance to suspect that the judgment was forged in external form in the process of performing the registration duties by exercising the average duty of care on the ground that there was an error in the above judgment and the difference in the degree of the above judgment, and it is difficult to view that there was an objective circumstance to suspect that the judgment was forged.

Meanwhile, Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that "the registrar shall reject the application by decision, stating the reasons therefor, only in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs. However, the same shall not apply in cases where the applicant revises the application on the same day if the defect in the application can be corrected." The meaning of "day" as provided in the proviso above is interpreted as the date when the investigation on the application for registration is completed and the matters to be corrected are made clear (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da29240, Sept. 29, 200). Under this legal principle, the court below held that the registration officer in charge of the application for registration of this case whose address and address in the copy of the register are different from the non-party who is the person liable for registration cannot be deemed to be any negligence that the registration officer in charge of the registration completed the registration of ownership transfer after receiving the non-party's resident registration abstract

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, while performing registration affairs without knowing that the above final judgment was forged in the course of handling the case of registration application based on the final judgment of this case by a certified judicial scrivener and defendant 2 and 3, who is a reason for such affairs, the court below determined that the above Defendants were not negligent in believing that the final judgment was genuine, and that the above Defendants were entrusted with an application for registration based on another final judgment which was forged prior to the application of this case (hereinafter “the second forged judgment”), but the above Defendants did not accept the case of registration application based on the second forgery judgment on the ground that there was error in the address of the person liable for registration, it is difficult to view that the above Defendants knew the error in the second forgery judgment of this case, and even if they knew of such circumstance, it is difficult to view that the above Defendants had a duty of care to verify the forgery of the judgment of this case with due care.

In a case where a certified judicial scrivener is delegated with an application for registration based on the written judgment, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that the above Defendants have a duty of care to verify forgery or forgery, based on the following: (a) if there is no objective circumstance to suspect that it was forged in light of the external appearance and method of preparation of the written judgment, it is not directly related to the registration of the written judgment; and (b) if there is a difference in the method of specification, it is difficult to judge whether it was out of the established rules and general preparation practices on the written judgment form; and (c) if there are various circumstances indicated in the records of this case, such as the process of accepting the application for registration of this case and the contents of each final judgment, the above Defendants were delegated with an application for registration based on the above forgery judgment prior to being entrusted with the application for registration of this case, on the ground that there was an error in the address of the person liable for registration on the written judgment, and thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the final judgment of this case.

4. Conclusion

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 Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)