Jeju Livestock Industry Cooperatives (Attorney Go Jong-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Lee Jong-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 16, 2011

Jeju District Court Decision 2008Gadan29207 Decided January 8, 2010

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000 and the amount of KRW 30,000,000 and the amount of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province from January 1, 2009; Defendant 3 from January 3, 2009; Defendant 1 from February 12, 2009 to March 30, 201; and Defendant 1 from March 30, 201 to the date of full payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff issued the letter of guarantee of this case to the defendant 3 without thoroughly confirming whether the defendant 3 is a legitimate owner of the land of this case. The public officials belonging to the defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province also trusted the letter of guarantee of this case without thoroughly conducting a field investigation, and issued the letter of confirmation of this case without disclosing that the letter of guarantee of this case is false. Based on the letter of guarantee of this case and the certificate of confirmation, the plaintiff trusted the entry of the ownership transfer registration in the non-party 3's name and borrowed KRW 30,00,000 as security, but lost the security right. Thus, the defendants asserted that they are liable for compensation for damages equivalent to the above loan to the plaintiff.

(1) As to this, the Defendant’s surety did not intend to draw up a false guarantee certificate with Nonparty 3, and it is difficult to deem that there was negligence in issuing the instant guarantee certificate since it was issued by comparing and reviewing the specifications of the removed copies and the land cadastre brought by Nonparty 3. (2) Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province submitted the instant guarantee certificate to confirm that the instant land was owned by Nonparty 3, Nonparty 7, an employee of the above Defendant, carried out a field investigation on the instant land; although Nonparty 7 did not hear the opinions of nearby residents at the time of the on-site investigation, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Measures Act provides that the opinion may not be omitted; and in light of the fact that it is impossible for the public official in charge to ascertain and confirm the actual ownership of each land on a daily basis, it is difficult to deem that Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province was negligent in disclosing that the instant guarantee certificate was false.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) The defendant's fault

A guarantor commissioned under the Act on Special Measures has an obligation to perform his/her duties independently, in good faith, and promptly (Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures). If the guarantor knew that the land in question is not owned by the applicant or was negligent in knowing that the land in question was not owned by the applicant in issuing a certificate of guarantee, the guarantor is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the person who believed and traded the registration to be true (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1312, Nov. 12, 1974, etc.).

In light of the following facts: (a) No. 3-2, No. 19-2, and No. 4-5, and No. 1-2, and No. 2, and No. 2 were indicated to the effect that Non-Party 3 acquired the instant land from September 9, 1981; (b) Non-Party 4, the deceased Non-Party 4, the deceased Non-Party 4, the deceased Non-Party 4, and the deceased Non-Party 5, the deceased Non-Party 3, the deceased Non-Party 4, the deceased Non-Party 3, the deceased Non-Party 4, the deceased Non-Party 5, the deceased Non-Party 5, the deceased Non-Party 3, the deceased Non-Party 3, the deceased Non-Party 4’s name and the deceased Non-Party 1, the deceased Non-Party 4’s name and the deceased Non-Party 4’s name and the deceased Non-Party 1, the deceased Non-Party 4’s name and address at the time of inheritance.

2) Non-party 7’s negligence on public officials belonging to Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province

Upon receipt of an application for the issuance of a certificate, the competent authority shall have the guarantor attend the meeting or verify the purpose of guarantee by telephone, and shall warn the guarantor to be punished if the guarantor makes a false guarantee, and shall verify the authenticity of the certificate by conducting a field investigation on the relevant real estate (Article 10(3) and (4) of the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Special Measures, Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

In light of the above facts, the letter of guarantee of this case was written to the effect that the non-party 3 succeeded to and owned the land from September 9, 1981. The copy presented by the non-party 3 to the guarantor was dead on May 25, 1951. The fact that the non-party 4, the deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 3, was dead on February 27, 1978. The deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 4, the legal domicile of the deceased non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the original owner of the land of this case, and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 6, the public official's legal domicile of this case.

In this regard, the above defendant alleged that the non-party 3 was aware of the fact that the non-party 3 was registered as the owner of the land of this case upon the issuance of a written confirmation and did not anticipate that the plaintiff would lend the land of this case as a collateral, and thus there is no proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's loss and the issuance of the written confirmation by the above defendant. However, the non-party 3 who acquired the ownership of the land of this case sells it or set the mortgage, etc. is naturally exercising the right inherent

3) Defendants’ liability for damages

Therefore, as seen in the above 1) above, the defendant guarantor issued a false certificate of guarantee by negligence as seen in the above 1. Since the letter of guarantee is one of the supporting documents for registration and the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff who entered into a loan contract with the belief that the above registration is true, and the defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province also is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the non-party 7's tort, who is a public official

(b) Scope of damages;

The plaintiff's ordinary damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's trust in the registration of ownership transfer in the non-party 3's non-party 3's trust and the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer after the loan was made shall be equivalent to the amount of the loan extended to the plaintiff within the limit of the maximum debt amount within the limit of the value of the land of this case, which is the object of the right to collateral security, within the limit of the maximum debt amount. The above value of the real estate shall be based on the time when the execution of the right to collateral security would have been expected if the right to collateral security was effective or when the fact-finding court's conclusion of arguments in the lawsuit for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da27623, 27630 delivered on April 9, 199, etc.). The fact that the amount loaned by the plaintiff to the non-party 30,000,000 won was 30,000 won or more, and the market value of the land of this case shall be 300,000,000 won or more.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges injured Persons (Presiding Judge) and Jin-Jin for Kim Ho-ho

A judge is unable to sign and seal due to a leave of absence;