(a) The degree of the duty of care of a judicial scrivener prescribed in Article 13-5 of the former Judicial Secretary Act concerning the confirmation of identity of the requester;

B. The meaning of "guarantee" under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and the degree of the duty of care required for the guarantor.

(c) Whether the duty of a guarantor to confirm may be mitigated or exempted where circumstances exist, such as the applicant's request for guarantee when confirming that the applicant is not the person liable for registration (affirmative)

A. The provisions of Article 13-5 of the former Judicial Records Act (amended by Act No. 4200, Jan. 13, 1990) concerning the confirmation of the identity of the commissioned person are the duty of confirmation that the duties of the judicial affairs of the judicial affairs clerk mainly come from the preparation of documents concerning the individual's rights and duties and submission to the court or prosecutor's office. Thus, there is a certificate of personal seal impression or resident registration certificate or other certificates equivalent thereto, and there is no circumstance that is particularly doubtful by ordinary attention, it is not the duty of the judicial affairs clerk to devise more specific methods to confirm the identity of the commissioned person

B. The term “guarantee” in Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act means that a person applying for registration and a person holding a title on the registry are the same persons in fact as a person holding a title on the registry. The degree of the duty of care required for such guarantor cannot be deemed the same as the degree of the duty of care of a judicial scrivener under the above Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the registration applicant performed his duty of care solely with the ordinary verification of documents, such as another person’s words or certificates, even though he was unaware of whether he is the person holding a title on the registry.

C. Where special circumstances exist, such as the applicant’s request for guarantee while confirming that the applicant is not the person liable for registration, the obligation to confirm the guarantor under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act may be reduced or exempted.

(a)(b) Article 750 of the Civil Code, Section 13-5 of the former Judicial Secretary Act (amended by Act No. 4200 of Jan. 13, 1990), Section 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Da49 delivered on September 22, 1987 (Gong1987,1626) (Gong1626). Supreme Court Decision 91Da27181 delivered on November 22, 1991 (Dong) B. Supreme Court Decision 78Da296 delivered on May 23, 197 (Gong1978,10916), Supreme Court Decision 86Do2293 delivered on May 26, 1987 (Gong1987,1105) (Gong105 delivered on May 9, 1972).

Lee Jong-hoon, Attorney Kim Ho-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Kim Young-young et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na50308 delivered on July 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 was the person responsible for registration, who was the non-party 2, who was the person responsible for registration by his adoption of evidence, and borrowed money from other persons, and offered the real estate of this case owned by the non-party 2 as collateral, and forged the certificate to be used as a resident registration certificate with the non-party 2's seal impression and the certificate (No. 10) to the extent that it can not be confirmed as the real estate. The court below rejected the defendant's request for registration of the non-party 1's establishment of a new registration as the guarantor's personal seal certificate and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1'.

2. The court below's examination of the process of cooking the evidence conducted for the above fact-finding in light of the records is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit.

In addition, according to Article 13-5 of the former Judicial Act, when a judicial scrivener receives a commission of a case, he/she shall require the requester to submit or present a certificate of personal seal impression or resident registration certificate, etc. or by other similar reliable methods to verify that the requester is the principal or his/her agent. This is mainly the duty of the judicial scrivener to prepare documents concerning his/her personal rights and duties and submit them to the court or the prosecutor's office. Thus, the court below affirmed the purport of the same purport that, inasmuch as the duties of the judicial scrivener are confirmed by the court or the prosecutor's office, it does not have a duty to consider more specific methods to confirm that the requester is the principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu49, Sept. 22, 1987). If the above facts are true, Defendant Kim Young-young shall be deemed to have fulfilled the ordinary verification procedure to be taken as a certified judicial scrivener, and it shall not be deemed that he/she was negligent in neglecting his/her duty to verify the principal

3. Meanwhile, “guarantee” of a document that guarantees the person liable for registration under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act refers to the verification by the due care of a good manager that the person applying for registration and the person holding a title on the registry are the same person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da296, May 23, 198; 86Do2293, May 26, 198; 86Do293, May 26, 198). The degree of the duty of care required for such guarantor cannot be deemed as identical to the above degree of the duty of care of a judicial scrivener. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the applicant performed the duty of care solely with the ordinary confirmation of documents, such as the statement or certificate of another person, while the applicant is unaware of the person holding a title on the registry. However, if special circumstances exist, such as the applicant’s request for a guarantee by the person liable for registration, it can be deemed that the guarantor’s duty of care is mitigated or exempted.

The court below determined that Defendant Kim G-gil and Sick-kick were not negligent in neglecting the duty of care as a guarantor under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and that the degree of the guarantor's duty of confirmation is the same as that of the judicial secretary. However, in addition to the confirmation of the court below directly rendered against Nonparty 1, the court below's decision is just and it is not justified in rejecting the Plaintiff's assertion that the above Defendants were negligent, and there is no violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. All arguments are without merit.

4. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)