If a person who purchased an immovable property from a invalid titleholder is deprived of ownership by the genuine holder of the right, the scope of damage that may be claimed against the person who has participated in the registration illegally.

Where a person who has purchased real estate from a person who has made an illegal registration on another person's real estate has lost its ownership due to an unlawful act committed by the person who participated in the preparation, etc. of a letter of guarantee, the damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the illegal act committed by the person who has taken part in the preparation, etc. of the letter of guarantee shall be deemed to have been paid in trust for the registration of invalidation and for the purchase of the real estate.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

E. E.I.

Defendant 1 and two others

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na542 delivered on June 25, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on its reasoning, the lower court: (a) held that the instant land was harmful to Nonparty 1; (b) Nonparty 1 forged the above certificate of seal impression and documents necessary for the transfer of registration; (c) sold them to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff lost the ownership by the judgment that became final and conclusive upon the above harmful lawsuit; (b) Nonparty 1 was subject to command and supervision by Defendant 1, a judicial clerk in the process of registering the transfer of ownership; (c) purchased the instant land from Nonparty 2, who was in the process of administering the said Defendant’s affairs; and (d) delivered only forged documents by losing the certificate of rights; and (e) Nonparty 2 was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to Nonparty 1’s office by preparing an application for registration under Defendant 1’s name, accompanied by a letter of guarantee under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and submitted it to the registry; and (e) Nonparty 1, who purchased the instant land via the registration of transfer from Nonparty 1 to the registry; and (e) decided that the Plaintiff was liable to compensate for damages incurred by Nonparty 2’s loss.

2. As seen above, it is clear that the claim in this case is the cause of the defendant's tort. Thus, the plaintiff's damage is the damage caused by the plaintiff's trust of the registration of invalidity of the cause of the non-party 1 registered as the owner due to the defendants' tort and the purchase price paid to purchase it is not the loss caused by the plaintiff. Thus, since the plaintiff does not lose the plaintiff's ownership, the damage at the market price at the time of loss of ownership shall not be deemed the damage. Thus, the above original decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles for compensation for damages caused by the tort.

3. The plaintiff cited a majority of the precedents as the grounds for appeal of so-called right, but the precedents of the theory of the theory of the lawsuit are not appropriate for the main case, and therefore the theory of the lawsuit is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal based on permission shall be reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)