Plaintiff (Law Firm B case, Attorneys Lee Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Jeon Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 30, 2008 (Defendant 1 and 2)

December 16, 2008 (Defendant 3)

1. The Plaintiff:

(a) The amount calculated by the ratio of 50% per annum from August 6, 2007 to the date of full payment to KRW 119,00,000 and the amount of KRW 85,00,000, among the joint and several shares, as well as KRW 119,00,000;

B. Defendant 3: 71,400,000 won out of the amount described in the above paragraph A (a) above, Defendant 1, 2, and each of them

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 3 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 shall be borne by Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff, Defendant 3, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the defendant 1-A and the defendant 3 as stated in the Disposition No. 1-3 (a) are sought to pay KRW 119,00,000 out of the amount stated in the Disposition No. 1-1 (a) and jointly with the defendant 1-2 (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant company").

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the plaintiff, the defendant company, and the defendant 2, and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant 3, or between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4, 5, 7-1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 8, 1 and 3, and the testimony of the non-party 1 as a whole.

A. On February 6, 2007, the Plaintiff invested KRW 85,000,00 to the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company shall pay the investment profit of KRW 34,00,000 in addition to returning the investment principal within six months. If the Defendant Company fails to pay the investment principal and the investment profit by the agreed date, the Defendant Company shall pay the investment principal plus the damages for delay calculated at a rate of 50% per annum on the investment principal. In order to secure the Plaintiff’s investment principal and the claim for investment profit, the Defendant Company entered into an investment agreement (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”). Defendant Company, the representative director of the Defendant Company, jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant investment agreement.

B. Under the investment agreement of this case, the Plaintiff paid KRW 85,00,000 to the Defendant Company on February 1, 2007, and KRW 60,000,000 on February 6, 2007, and KRW 80,000,000 on February 7, 2007. The Defendant Company completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case with the maximum debt amount of KRW 119,00,000 on February 7, 2007 (hereinafter “the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case”). At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company delegated the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case to Defendant 3, a certified judicial scrivener who traded with the Defendant Company, to the Defendant Company, who was in charge of the affairs related to the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, and requested the Defendant Company to complete the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, and the Plaintiff issued the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case to the Defendant 3.

C. Defendant 2, when the Defendant Company directed the Defendant Company’s financing, arbitrarily cancelled the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage under the Plaintiff’s name by using the certificate of completion of registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage, which was kept in the Defendant Company, to sell the instant real estate to a third party for use as operating funds of the Defendant Company. On May 21, 2007, the Defendant 2 requested that the Plaintiff, who visited the Defendant Company’s office for investment consultation, appear to be the Plaintiff. The Defendant 3 expressed his intention to delegate the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Defendant’s office. After presenting the certificate of completion of registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage, Nonparty 1, who visited the Defendant Company’s office, submitted the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Defendant Company’s registry office for cancellation on the ground that the secured debt of the establishment of the instant mortgage was fully repaid. Nonparty 1, who submitted the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff’s non-party 2, who was under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Company’s name and the non-party 2’s name.

D. Around May 11, 2007, the Defendant Company sold the instant real estate to Nonparty 2 in price of KRW 170,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to Nonparty 2 on May 23, 2007.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company and the defendant 2

According to the facts acknowledged above, Defendant Company and Defendant 2 are joint and several obligors of the investment principal and the obligation of the investment proceeds under the investment agreement of this case, and are jointly and severally and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 119,00,000 (=investment principal of KRW 85,00,000 + 34,000,000 + investment principal of KRW 85,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 50% per annum under the agreement from August 6, 2007 to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 3

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) According to the facts acknowledged above, when the defendant 3 was delegated by the defendant company and a woman under the name of the non-party 1 who is his employee with the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the new mortgage in this case, and the non-party 1, who is his employee, was entrusted with the registration of cancellation of the establishment of the establishment of the new mortgage in this case through the non-party 1, pursuant to Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, the defendant 3 erred by entrusting the plaintiff's intention and cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the new mortgage in this case to the registration of the establishment of the new mortgage in this case by submitting the certificate prepared by the law, such as resident registration certificate from the female under the name of the non-party 1, or by any other similar reliable method, and the non-party 3 submitted to the registration office of this case for the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the new mortgage in this case to the plaintiff's name and the non-party 1, regardless of whether the plaintiff was liable for damages caused by the plaintiff 3.

(2) Determination as to Defendant 3’s assertion

(A) Upon entering into the instant investment agreement with the Defendant Company, Defendant 3 comprehensively delegated the right to collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name, the right to cancel the right to collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name, and the right to sell the instant real estate, etc. Furthermore, the Plaintiff had the Defendant Company keep the registration certificate for the establishment of collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name. Thus, inasmuch as Defendant 3 applied for the cancellation of the registration for the establishment of collateral security under the Defendant Company’s name and the right to cancel the registration for the establishment of collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name and the Defendant Company’s consent to comprehensively delegate the registration for the establishment of collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name and the right to collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name and duty to request the cancellation of the registration for the establishment of collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name and the Defendant Company’s name and non-party 1 through Nonparty 3, it is difficult to view that there was any error in the Plaintiff’s name and non-party 2’s request for the cancellation of the registration for the establishment of collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name and non-party 2’s title 3.

(B) Following the Plaintiff’s inspection of the registry of the instant real estate and the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate regardless of the Plaintiff’s intention, Defendant 3 demanded that the Defendant Company and Defendant 2 pay for the investment principal, etc. or damages under the investment agreement of this case over several times, and agreed to extend the payment period of the investment principal, etc. between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company. Accordingly, Defendant 3 was issued and delivered a certificate of borrowing KRW 10,00,000 by receiving KRW 10,000 from the Defendant Company without the permission of the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate, and it was alleged that the Defendant Company had explicitly confirmed the unauthorized cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate by receiving KRW 10,00,000,000 from the Defendant Company after the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate, but it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant Company without any other evidence.

(3) Limitation of liability

The Plaintiff, through Nonparty 1, entrusted the registration of the establishment of the instant establishment to Defendant 3 when the registration of the establishment was completed, requested Defendant 3 to leave the registration of the establishment of the instant establishment to the Defendant Company. Accordingly, Defendant 3 completed the establishment of the establishment of the instant establishment, and issued the registration certificate to the Defendant Company, and Defendant 2 arbitrarily cancelled the registration of the establishment of the instant establishment by using the registration certificate of the establishment of the instant establishment, which was kept in the Defendant Company, as the mortgagee of the instant real estate, for continued possession, the Plaintiff directly stored the registration certificate of the establishment of the instant establishment to keep the ownership of the instant real estate. However, the Plaintiff failed to collect the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant establishment without permission, which was left to the Defendant Company in conflict with the interest of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff erred by failing to remove the establishment of the establishment of the instant establishment without permission by using the registration certificate, and the Plaintiff’s aforementioned error is more likely to cause the Plaintiff’s damages to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s damages to the remainder of Defendant 30%.

B. Scope of liability for damages

Furthermore, we examine the amount of damages that Defendant 3 should compensate for to the Plaintiff. The amount of damages that Defendant 3 sustained by the Plaintiff due to Defendant 3’s tort caused by the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage caused by Defendant 3’s tort shall be the total of 119,000,000 investment principal and investment income that the Plaintiff should have paid from the Defendant Company pursuant to the investment agreement of this case and the damages for delay secured by the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case, namely, the amount equivalent to 119,00,000 won, which is the maximum amount of claims for the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case. Accordingly, the amount of damages that Defendant 3 should compensate to the Plaintiff shall be 71,40,000 won (=119,00,0000 won x 60%).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 3 is obligated to pay KRW 71,400,000 out of the amount stated in the above 2.2. to Defendant Company, Defendant 2, and each other.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the claims of this case against the plaintiff company and defendant 2 are justified, they shall be accepted respectively. The claims against the defendant 3 shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)