Liability of the guarantor under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership Transfer;

If a guarantor prescribed in the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership has intentionally or negligently performed in issuing a certificate of guarantee, and the letter of guarantee is one of the supporting documents for the registration, and if a person who has transacted with the belief that the registration is true, the guarantor shall be liable for damages.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership

Plaintiff

Defendant’s attorney Park Jae-hoon

Daegu District Court Decision 74Na115 delivered on July 2, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that the defendant, as non-party 1 and the non-party 2, was entrusted to the non-party 3 as a guarantor under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and that the non-party 3 knew of the above fact that the non-party 3 would not be held liable for damages arising from the non-party 3's sale of forest land under his/her own name, and that the above non-party 3 would not be held liable for damages arising from the non-party 3's sale of forest land under his/her own name, and that the non-party 3 would not be held liable for damages arising from the non-party 3's sale of forest land under his/her own name, and that the non-party 3 would not be held liable for damages arising from the non-party 3's sale of forest land under his/her own name, and that the non-party 3 would not be held liable for damages arising from the non-party 3's sale of forest land under his/her own trust.

However, according to the records, it cannot be determined that there is a violation of the rules of evidence in the above process of fact-finding by the court below, and the guarantee certificate issued by the defendant in the original judgment is a guarantee certificate prescribed in Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership as recognized by the original judgment, and it can be determined that this Act is not a written guarantee which is separate from this Act or a special agreement. However, even if the above guarantee certificate is a guarantee certificate prescribed by the above Act, the guarantor has a duty to perform its duties independently and faithfully as prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes. Thus, in issuing the above guarantee certificate, the defendant has a duty to perform its duties independently and faithfully. Thus, if the forest was known that the forest was not owned by the above non-party 3, or was negligent in not owned by the non-party 3, the defendant's intention or negligence, and therefore, it cannot be determined that the defendant's duty to pay damages to the plaintiff due to the above violation of the legal principles as to the registration of ownership transfer of the forest under the name of the non-party 3.

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 Seo-gu et al. (Presiding Justice)