The responsibility of a person who has guaranteed blank in advance as to the fact that the applicant and the title holder on the registry are the same person.

The purpose of legislation of Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is to prevent unlawful registration on the one hand while opening a registration path in lieu of the certificate of completion of registration in the case of loss of the certificate of completion of registration. As such, the guarantor is obligated to confirm and guarantee the same person as the applicant for registration and the nominal owner on the register with due care of a good manager that the application for registration was made according to the applicant's intention. However, if the applicant cannot acquire the real estate ownership of another person as a result of a blank guarantee in advance without taking confirmation procedures in breach of such duty of care, the guarantor should be held liable for joint tort.

Article 760 of the Civil Act, Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

December 22, 1970, 69Da1645 decided Dec. 22, 1970 (Article 49(1)698 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Canada 4434, house 18 ①126)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju District Court (80 Ghana149)

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs the amount of KRW 21,912,00 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from March 28, 1979 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The judgment of both the first and second courts that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

(1) On the 5th anniversary of the fact that the above registration was omitted on the non-party 1’s name, the non-party 1’s name and the non-party 2’s signature number omitted, and the non-party 1’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 5’s own name, and the non-party 1’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 1’s own name and the non-party 5’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 1’s own name. The non-party 5’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 1’s own name and the non-party 4’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 1’s own name, and the non-party 2’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 1’s own name and the non-party 5’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 1’s own name and the non-party 1’s new registration number omitted on the non-party 1’s own name.

The guarantee under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is a letter of guarantee issued by two or more adults meeting the qualification requirements prescribed in the same Article, and opened a registration path in lieu of the certificate of completion of registration. On the other hand, since the identity between the applicant for registration and the registered titleholder is confirmed and prevented, the person conducting such guarantee is the same person as the applicant for registration and the nominal titleholder on the registry, and the applicant for registration has a duty to confirm and guarantee the fact that the application for registration was made in accordance with the applicant’s intent with a good manager’s due care. The defendants are obliged to confirm and guarantee the above confirmation procedure without any change in the purport of the guarantee. The defendants received 50 billion won from the head of the office of the judicial affairs and the above confirmation procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of non-party 5, and as a result, the registration of ownership transfer was conducted in accordance with the name of non-party 5, and thus, it cannot be said that there is reasonable proximate causal relation between the plaintiffs’ act and the plaintiffs’ obligation to purchase the real estate in this case.

The Defendants asserted that, around February 1979, the market price of the instant site was approximately KRW 190,000 per square day. The Plaintiffs purchased this amount of KRW 82,00 per square day and did not examine whether Nonparty 5 is the true owner of the instant site. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the above negligence should be taken into account in determining the Defendants’ damages amount. Thus, the Defendants purchased the instant site at KRW 80,000 per square day, while the fact that the Plaintiffs purchased the instant site at KRW 80,000 per square day was in the capacity of the Plaintiffs, the ordinary market price of the instant site was KRW 190,000 per square day, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was remarkably higher than the purchase price, and even if Nonparty 5 did not investigate whether the Plaintiff is the true owner of the instant site, the Nonparty is presumed to have acquired the ownership of the instant site in the name of the Nonparty, and thus, the Nonparty’s assertion that there was no reason to deem the Defendants’ negligence as owned by the Nonparty.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each of the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 21,912,00 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from March 28, 1979 to the full payment date as claimed by the plaintiffs among the above amount of KRW 39,056,000 paid by the plaintiffs to the non-party 5 as the purchase price of the site of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as a conclusion with the party members, and the defendants' appeal against this is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are so decided as per Disposition by the defendants.

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)