The examination authority and duty of registered public officials;

The registration officer does not have the authority of substantive examination to examine the conformity of the legal relationship with the substantive law with the registration application documents and the registry, and does not have the authority of formal examination to examine whether the registration requirements are met by the application documents and the registry. However, if the registration officer has neglected to do so even though it can be identified that the registration right certificate, etc. submitted by the registration officer was not actually prepared, it violates the duty of due care to observe in exercising the formal examination authority.

Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1753 delivered on August 25, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant litigation performer (the grounds of appeal supplementary to the grounds of appeal are presented after the expiration of the period for submission of the grounds of appeal.

to the extent of such determination)

(1) Ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the registration right in the name of the non-party Kim Jong-soo who was forged by the non-party Nos. 7-1, the sale certificate to the non-party No. 1, the delegation letter of application for registration, and the certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence No. 20-4) concerning the land of this case was forged on July 1984, and the non-party No. 1 applied for the registration of ownership transfer to the non-party No. 1, and the registration public official who is not aware of the inside of the above documents was issued with the registration certificate (Evidence No. 3) of the non-party No. 7. The registration right in the name of the non-party No. 1, which was forged by the non-party No. 1, was the registration right in the name of the non-party No. 7.

(2) Ground of appeal No. 2

The registration officer does not have a substantive authority to examine whether the application for registration is consistent with the legal relationship under the substantive law, and there is no formal authority to examine whether the application documents and the registration documents are in conformity with the registration requirements by the registry. However, even though it can be identified that the submitted registration documents, etc. are not genuine if they were done with ordinary attention as the registration officer, if they were to be in conflict with the registration officer, they are in violation of the duty of care to observe in exercising its formal review authority.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the registration number of the non-party Kim Jong-soo, which was forged and submitted by the non-party 1 to the registry, is different from the registration number of the transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party Kim Il-soo, the registration number recorded in the registry is different from the registration number of the non-party Kim Jong-soo, the second, although the receipt date of the registration number recorded in the register was January 10, 1983, the receipt number was changed to 28524, and third, the registration number of the head of the registry office was different from the seal of the ordinary use, and fourth, without the inter-party seal of the registration certificate on the back of the registration certificate and the front of the sale certificate, the public official who accepted the registration number was not a public official whose registration number was recorded in the register or whose registration number was recorded in the register or whose registration number was recorded in the register or whose registration number was recorded in the register or whose registration number was recorded in the register or who had not been found to have been negligent in the above legal reasoning.

(3) Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

The issue is that the judgment of the court below regarding the process of concluding the instant real estate sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the plaintiff's negligence is erroneous in the misconception of facts and the principle of equity, the lack of reasoning, or the contradiction of reasoning. However, it is nothing more than disputeing the legitimate establishment of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of objection.

In addition, the decision of the court below ordering the payment of damages for delay from October 5, 1984 to the full payment of the purchase price of this case is just, and there is no error of law in the reasoning, inconsistent with the reasoning, or incomplete reasoning, such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

(4) Ground of appeal Nos. 5 through 7

In light of the facts established by the court below, as seen earlier, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the registration of ownership transfer, such as the registration right certificate and certificate of personal seal impression, which were forged and submitted by Nonparty 1, and thereby making the Plaintiff mistake that the above Nonparty is the real owner, thereby making the Plaintiff mistake that the above Nonparty is the real owner, thereby making the Plaintiff obtain money and valuables equivalent to the purchase price amount, and thereby, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the measures that the court below held that the Defendant is liable for the above damages suffered by the Plaintiff as the user of the above

The issue is that there is no predictability about the damage of this case in the process of the examination by the registry official, and there is no substantial causal relationship between the damage of this case and the negligence of the registry official, but it is merely an arbitrary argument and therefore is without merit.

In addition, the decision of the court below that there is an error of violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing, but all of the arguments are without merit.

2. Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jae-won (Presiding Justice)