[1] Whether a registrar has the authority to conduct a substantive examination (negative) and where a registrar's negligence is recognized by accepting an application for registration with a forged document

[2] The degree of the duty of care required for the formal examination by a registrar in receipt of an application for registration filed in writing accompanied by a written judgment

[3] The case reversing and returning the judgment of the court below that recognized the State's liability for compensation on the ground of a violation of the duty of care by a registrar, on the ground that the judgment document submitted by appending to the application for registration was forged and that the entries and the form of entries are different from the method of preparation of general judgment document

[1] A registrar has the authority to examine whether a document required for an application for registration is submitted under the Registration of Real Estate Act, and whether a document submitted is authentic formally, but there is no authority to examine whether the document submitted is consistent with the legal relationship under the substantive law. Thus, a registrar must examine the legitimacy of an application for registration by reviewing a document submitted formally or comparing it with the registry. In the case where it is recognized as an application for registration by a forged document as a result of examination by such method, that is, where it is formally failed, it shall be deemed that the applicant has an official duty to reject the application. However, the registrar is not negligent by an agency, such as the case where a document submitted is forged, and all cases where the applicant accepted the application for registration are required to deal with the case of mass registration promptly and appropriately. In the process of examining the above method, even if the average registrar, who is in charge of the registration, was able to easily have been submitted with the ordinary duty of care that should have been prepared in the process of examining the application for registration, it may not be recognized as a case where the document was not examined and dismissed.

[2] In a case where a registrar receives a written application for registration accompanied by a written application for registration, whether the document required for the application for registration has been submitted, whether the document itself has the formal matters required, whether the party to the written judgment and the indication of the order are supporting the legitimacy of the application for registration, and if all are determined by the method of mutual comparison between registers, etc., the relevant formal examination duty shall be deemed to have been fulfilled. In a case where there is no objective situation that is easily doubtful that the document was forged in light of the external form and method of preparation, such as where the matters stated in the written judgment are defective or considerably recorded, etc., the registration officer is not directly related to the registration filed among the matters stated in the written judgment, and it cannot be said that there is a duty of care to verify the forgery thereof more detailedly on the basis thereof.

[3] The case reversing and returning the judgment of the court below that recognized the State's liability for compensation on the ground of a violation of the duty of care by a registrar, on the ground that the judgment document submitted by appending to the application for registration was forged and that the entries and the form of entries are different from the method of preparation of a general judgment document

[1] Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Articles 40 and 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [3] Articles 40 and 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2470 decided Mar. 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 663), Supreme Court Decision 90Ma772 decided Oct. 29, 1990 (Gong1990, 2395), Supreme Court Decision 93Da46469 decided Jan. 14, 1994 (Gong1994, 717)

Class Kim Kim

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na47978 delivered on January 23, 2003

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

1. The court below acknowledged that the non-party's joint owners of the forest of this case were liable for the registration of transfer of ownership by forging the documents to order the execution of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership, and submitted the documents to the Ministry of Government Support of Seoul District Court (U.S.) for the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest of this case to the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, and the registration officer in charge of the registration (as the Registration of Real Estate Act was amended by Act No. 5592 on December 28, 1998, the name of the registrar was changed to the registrar) without knowing that the above attached documents were forged, and the plaintiff purchased the forest of this case under the non-party's name as genuine and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by purchasing the forest of this case under the non-party's name, but the true owners of the forest of this case were not the non-party and the plaintiff's each transfer of ownership under the name of the non-party's name and the non-party's judgment was cancelled by using "No. 2 and No. 4.

2. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below that the registrar accepted the application of this case as legitimate and accepted the application of this case was negligent in the course of performing his duties for the following reasons.

A registrar has the authority to examine whether documents necessary for an application for registration were submitted in accordance with the Registration of Real Estate Act, and whether documents submitted are formally authentic. However, there is no authority to examine whether the application for registration were submitted in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, a registrar shall examine documents submitted in itself or comparing them with the registry. In a case where it is recognized as an application for registration by a forged document, i.e., where it is formally failed as a result of the examination by such method, it shall be deemed that the applicant has an official duty to reject the application. However, the registrar is not at fault of the registrar, and all cases of accepting the application for registration are not deemed to have been submitted, since it is requested to deal with a large amount of application for registration promptly and appropriately, it cannot be deemed that the document submitted was forged and all cases of accepting the application for registration have been done with an average registrar in charge of the registration duties required to have been submitted with an ordinary duty of care in the process of examining the above method, but it can be easily recognized that the document submitted was forged and thus, it can not be recognized as legitimate.

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, the above application for registration of this case was filed at the time of the application for registration of this case, in writing attesting the grounds for registration, and all documents necessary for the above application for registration including the certified copy of judgment and the certified copy of the judgment and the certified source for confirmation thereof were submitted. The final judgment contains all the matters to be stated in the law in ordinary order, and the seal of approval pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate is affixed. The defendants' name and address stated in the above written judgment are identical with the indication of the name and address of the person liable for registration, such as the application for registration and the registry, and the indication of the real estate subject to the ownership transfer registration procedure ordered against the defendants under Article

Thus, the registrar in receipt of the application for registration of this case is not directly related to the registration filed among the matters entered in the written judgment, and is not directly related to the registration filed in the written judgment, but to the matters that are not affected by the validity of the judgment due to the difference in the method of entry, and it is judged whether the document was prepared only in the form of the written judgment, whether the document was prepared with the formality required by the written judgment, especially whether the parties to the written judgment and the indication of the order are supporting the legitimacy of the application for registration, and as long as all are determined by the method of mutual comparison with the register, etc., the document submitted, and whether the document submitted support the legitimacy of the application for registration, etc., and there is no objective circumstance to doubt that the document is forged in light of the external form and method of preparation, etc., it cannot be said that the registrar has a duty of care to verify the forgery more detailedly on the basis thereof.

Therefore, the court below held that the court below has a duty of care to take more detailed procedures for confirmation of the authenticity of the judgment as to the registrar who received the application for registration of this case, on the ground that the entry of the address and date of the party in the above judgment is different from the method of preparation of the rules on the form of decision and the court below rules (the proviso of Article 10 (3) of the above Rules provides that the same shall not apply to the case where it is necessary to indicate the date by any other method for special reasons) as stated in the court below's decision, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the scope of the registrar or the degree of the duty of care when the forged judgment, etc. submitted in writing proving the grounds for registration. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)