A. The purport of the provision of Article 13-5 of the Judicial Police Act

(b) A case where liability for damages is recognized on the ground that a judicial scrivener was negligent in failing to perform the duty of verification;

C. The meaning of Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act that "to guarantee that the person liable for registration is the principal."

A. The purport of the provision of Article 13-5 of the Judicial Secretariat Act is that in a case where circumstances to suspect is not discovered because a judicial scrivener has submitted or presented a resident registration certificate or a certificate of personal seal impression to confirm that he/she or his/her agent, he/she can verify his/her identity only with such certificate, etc., or where circumstances exist to suspect otherwise in the process of confirmation, he/she has a duty to verify his/her identity or his/her agent more specifically through multiple methods as possible.

(b) The case holding that the judicial assistant is liable for damages on the ground that he was negligent by failing to verify the applicant for registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the judicial assistant;

C. Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration as provided for in the registration of Real Estate Act is the person who actually applies for registration and the person who is registered on the registry is the person in good faith

(b) Article 13-5 of the Judicial Act; Article 750 of the Civil Act; Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu49 delivered on September 22, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 78Da296 delivered on May 23, 197, Supreme Court Decision 86Do293 delivered on May 26, 1987

Their incentives et al.

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na4800 delivered on August 26, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the original judgment, the court below decided that the non-party 1 was liable for registration to secure the real estate of this case which was owned by the non-party 2, his wife, and forged his resident registration certificate and seal imprint to borrow money, and then promised to prepare and commission the mortgage documents and loan certificates necessary for borrowing money from the plaintiffs and the non-party 2 as the judicial affairs office of the defendant 1, and that the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 2 was responsible for registration and did not request the above registration to obtain a false signature from the non-party 1, and that the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 was responsible for registration, and that the non-party 2 was not responsible for registration, and that the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 was not responsible for registration of the above real estate after receiving the above legal affairs from the non-party 1's agent's request for the above legal affairs, and that the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 2 was not responsible for registration, and that the above female and the above female 2 were issued a false signature.

According to Article 13-5 of the Judicial Act, when a judicial scrivener has received a commission of a case, he/she shall require the requester to submit or present a certificate of personal seal impression or resident registration certificate prepared pursuant to the Act and subordinate statutes or verify that the requester is the principal or his/her agent by any other similar reliable means. This means that the judicial scrivener has a duty to verify the identity of the principal only with such certificate, etc. in a case where there are no circumstances to suspect that a person is the principal or his/her agent unless he/she finds any other circumstances to suspect that he/she is the principal or his/her agent, or to verify that he/she is the principal or his/her agent by any other similar means (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu49, Sept. 22, 1987).

As seen earlier, Defendant 1, a judicial assistant in receipt of the written application for registration of this case, failed to obtain the resident registration certificate of Nonparty 2 from Nonparty 2 or Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2’s age was 43 years old as of November 10, 1952, when Nonparty 2’s age was 43 years old as of November 10, 1952, and there may be special questions as to whether he is the same person, even though he did not verify that he is the person more detailed by means of various methods, such as comparing the resident registration certificate’s photograph and himself, or pursuing the reason that the age and appearance on the certificate is based on the certificate, and this is due to the negligence of failing to perform his duty of care due to the receipt of special request from the plaintiffs, as seen earlier, and the court below’s negligence on the above Defendant for the same reason is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal representative or agent under Article 13-5 of the Private Law.

In addition, as seen earlier, since the case was directly commissioned by the non-party 2 himself/herself and it is particularly necessary to confirm whether the non-party 2 himself/herself is the non-party 2, whether the non-party 1, who was accompanied with the non-party 2, could have been viewed as the non-party 2's representative, does not interfere with the above judgment of the court below and it is nothing more than an independent opinion that

2. 이 사건은 피고 1이 사법서사로서 소외 2 명의의 근저당권 설정등기신청을 함에 있어 신청하는 사람이 소외 2 본인임을 제대로 확인하지 아니함으로써 진정하지 아니한 근저당권설정등기가 이루어졌고 원고들이 이를 믿고 금원을 대여하게 된 데에 대하여 원고들이 위 피고 등에게 책임을 묻는 것일 뿐 위 피고가 원고들과 소외 2 사이의 금전대차계약에 의한 금원수수나 담보물확인을 하는 일에 관한 책임을 곧바로 붇는 것이 아니므로 이 사건이 위와 같이 금원수수나 담보물확인을 잘못한 데 대한 책임을 묻는 것임을 전제로 하여 사법서사의 업무를 규정한 사법서사법 제2조 의 취지를 부당하게 확대해석한 법리오해가 있다는 논지는 독자적 견해에 불과하다.

3. In addition, without confirming whether the plaintiffs are the debtor himself/herself or his/her agent and without confirming whether he/she has the authority to receive the money, he/she shall hear only the horses of the defendant 1 and pay the full amount of the loan to the other person who is regarded as his/her agent, thereby providing part of the cause of the damage in this case, and it is compatible with the above negligence of the defendant 1 and the other defendants' negligence as stated in the above negligence and the subsequent negligence of the defendant 1 are recognized. Thus, the court below acknowledged the above negligence of the defendants, while the court below acknowledged the above negligence of the defendants, it cannot be said that there is a contradiction in the reasoning by recognizing the above negligence of the plaintiffs. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the defendant's liability against the above negligence and not recognize it to the extent that it is exempted.

4. Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration as provided for in the above Article 49 shall be confirmed as the care of a good manager that the person applying for registration and the title holder on the registry is the same person (see Supreme Court Decisions 78Da296, May 23, 1978; 86Do2293, May 26, 1987). However, in the letter of guarantee of this case, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 et al. provide that "I guarantee that the above real estate is not the person liable for registration" in the letter of guarantee of this case, "I will guarantee that the person liable for registration is not the person liable for registration," and that the title of the letter of guarantee prepared and submitted is "written guarantee that the person liable for registration is not the person liable for registration," and that "I will not be responsible for all criminal charges against the person who is the person liable for registration and the person liable for registration, as a good manager," it cannot be interpreted as 17.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)