1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "litigation of the court of first instance" was used as "litigation of the court of second instance"

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On January 8, 2008, the Plaintiff’s assertion D borrowed KRW 70 million from the Defendant, and then prepared a certificate of borrowing with the debtor as the Plaintiff. Based on this, the Plaintiff set up the right to collateral security E with the identity of the Defendant as the mortgagee on the forest of this case owned by the Plaintiff, but there was no fact that the Plaintiff delegated D with the authority to borrow money and set up the right to collateral security.

Nevertheless, as a certified judicial scrivener who is a monetary lender and a certified judicial scrivener with respect to D, the Defendant is negligent in neglecting to verify whether D has been entrusted with the authority regarding the lending of money and the authority regarding the establishment of the right to collateral security. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

B. The judgment of this court is 1) In civil cases, even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., the facts recognized in the related civil cases which have already been established are significant evidence unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da48964, Mar. 26, 2009). 2) We examine this case.

In a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage filed by the Plaintiff against E, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case was made by an unauthorized representation or a forged document, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff issued his seal impression and a certificate of personal seal to D around January 7, 2008.