The damage incurred as a result of the purchase of the false registration of ownership in the name of the non-party, which was caused by the negligence of the defendants, is the damage related to the above non-party and the defendants' joint tort.

If the non-party, who failed to fulfill his duty of due care as a good manager, prepares a false certificate of guarantee to preserve ownership, the damage incurred by the non-party to purchase the certificate with the belief of its registration shall be a loss that is equivalent to the person issued by the non-party and the defendants due to their joint tort.

Article 760 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2759 delivered on October 8, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendants’ Han-do Office’ ground of appeal is examined.

The facts duly established by the court below are that the real estate was owned by the clan of the deceased clan, but the registration of ownership was passed under the name of the deceased non-party 1, and the property inherited to the non-party 2 due to his death. The above registration No. 3 was recorded due to the six and twenty five incidents, but the non-party 4, who was the birth of the non-party 1, falsely reported that the forest was owned by the non-party 3, and that the non-party 3's child, who was the birth of the non-party 1, was not the owner of the non-party 3, and that the non-party 4 was not liable for the above registration of ownership in the forest register as the owner of the non-party 4's own property under the premise that the above registration No. 1, Sep. 1, 1963 to Sep. 30, 1963, which was executed by the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and that the non-party 4 was not liable for the above registration of ownership in the forest register.

Defendant’s ground of appeal by Nonparty 5

On the premise of the above facts acknowledged by the court below, it is obvious that the registration of false preservation by Nonparty 4 due to the restoration of the forestry register of the head of Seongdong-gu Office due to the submission of the defendants' letter of confirmation of false owner's above contents is damage in proximate causal relation caused by joint tort with Nonparty 4 by the defendants, and even if the victim did not actually lose ownership at the time of the defendants' tort, even if the victim did not own ownership at the time of the defendants' tort (in this case, the true forest owner does not lose ownership by the false preservation registration, and it is clear that Seongdong-gu Office cannot become the victim of property) the damage suffered by the person who believed and traded the future registration of invalidation in the future is the cause of the defendants' tort. Therefore, the appeal is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon