[손해배상청구사건][고집1970민(2),81]
Cases where liability for damages of a guarantor under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act has been recognized.
In making a guarantee under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the person liable for registration must confirm and guarantee the person liable for registration with due care and with due care as a good manager, and if the person liable for registration causes damages to a third party due to a fraudulent registration with due care in breach of such duty of care, the guarantor shall be liable for the damages.
Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
69Da1645 delivered on February 24, 1970 (Kaad. 4434 delivered on April 24, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18Da126 delivered on July 18, 199)
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Gwangju District Court of the first instance (69 Ghana616)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff jointly and severally pays the amount of KRW 700,000 to the plaintiff with the interest of KRW 20 percent per annum from January 26, 1964 to the time of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants.
The plaintiff has revoked the judgment of the first instance court and sought the same judgment as the purport of the claim.
If the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 are all the purport of testimony and oral argument of non-party Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below's judgment, the non-party Nos. 3 and 6-1, and the whole purport of the testimony and oral argument of the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 in the large exhibition around Jan. 25, 1964, the non-party No. 2 made at the office of the non-party No. 3's request that the non-party No. 1426 of the Daejeon District Court received the non-party No. 1426 on the same day, and there is no registration certificate as to the right of the non-party No. 3. 6. The defendants were confirmed with the care of a good manager or with legitimate proxy, and the plaintiff cannot be found to have registered the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 with the same certificate No. 3060 days on the same date. 80.
Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that when a certificate of completion of registration concerning the right of a person liable for registration is destroyed or lost, two or more persons who have completed the registration of establishment in the registry shall attach two copies of a document guaranteeing that the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration, as the person liable for registration, is the person liable for registration, to whom the registration is made, shall confirm whether the application is due to his/her will, and prevent any fraudulent registration, and maintain accuracy of registration by preventing the registration. Therefore, the guarantor is not sufficient because the person liable for registration proves that the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration, and the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration, not only the person himself/herself or his/her agent, but also the person liable for registration, who is the person liable for registration, shall verify that the person is the person liable for registration and the person liable for registration is the same as the person liable for registration, and the person liable for registration and the person liable for registration on the registry
However, this damages liability is limited to the defendants' joint tort, and the plaintiff should have known the above damages and the defendants, the perpetrator, unless there are other special circumstances at the time when the cancellation ruling of the registration of creation of mortgage in the exhibition area became final and conclusive on November 24, 1964, the above damages claim is extinguished by the short-term statute of limitations on November 24, 1967 after the lapse of three years from the same date, and has already been terminated (the soar gushe was received on April 24, 1968).
If so, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is correct and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with the principle of the losing party's liability as to the burden of appeal cost.
Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)