[1] The probative value of the relevant criminal judgment in a civil trial

[2] In a case where Party A agreed to remove the above ground building at the time of selling the land to Party B, and later agreed to transfer the building to Party B without compensation and deliver all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to Party B, and Party B’s purchase of the above land from Party B, Party B took over the above provisional registration from Party B, and Party B took over the above provisional registration from Party B, and Party B takes over the above provisional registration at the same time, and Party B takes over the provisional registration again made a provisional registration; and Party B entered into a provisional registration agreement with Party B with a view to not claiming rent or claiming removal from the lessee using the above building until the full payment of the purchase price of the land was made, the case holding that Party B is obligated to legally take over the status of the right holder of the above provisional registration from Party B, and Party C is obligated to perform the principal registration procedure as to the above provisional registration, and Party C is merely required not to demand the lessee to complete the above provisional registration before the full payment of the purchase price of the land to Party B, and even if Party C forged forged the above building sales contract and completed the above registration.

[3] Whether a certified judicial scrivener can act on his/her behalf in preparing a confirmation document stipulated in Article 49(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act (negative), and in cases where a certified judicial scrivener himself/herself fails to confirm the person liable for registration even if he/she puts his/her seal on his/her confirmation document, whether registration made by the confirmation document itself and the confirmation document becomes null and void (negative)

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 49 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da14470 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2830) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da4386 Delivered on April 28, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 901) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da27055 Delivered on September 14, 2006 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4295 Delivered on June 14, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1055)

Seoul Fisheries Administration and Market Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Park Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yeft Co., Ltd. and 107 others (Attorney Lee Byung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na47703 decided Dec. 30, 2008

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The facts recognized in the judgment of the relevant criminal case shall be the fluorent evidence in the civil trial unless there are special circumstances, but if it is deemed difficult to adopt the factual judgment of the criminal judgment as it is in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, it may be rejected (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da27055 delivered on September 14, 2006, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that it is difficult to view that the sales contract (No. 6-2) of this case was forged by taking full account of the following facts: (a) the statement of the non-party employee of the certified judicial scrivener was consistent; (b) the Plaintiff did not take all measures, such as receiving a written confirmation on the transfer of ownership, despite asserting that the Plaintiff had issued the documents for the transfer of ownership to Defendant YF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant YF”) for other purposes; and (c) the Defendant YF could file a claim for the provisional registration of this case at any time on the provisional registration of this case; and (d) there was no reason to promise to pay a large amount

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if it is different from the factual judgment of the court of first instance (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Kadan5056), such fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence or inconsistent reasoning as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

On July 23, 1998, when selling the instant land to the Korea Land Corporation, the court below agreed to completely remove the instant building by October 22, 1998, but decided to transfer the instant building without compensation and deliver all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the Korea Land Corporation on April 27, 1999, and completed the provisional registration of this case to the Korea Land Corporation on April 27, 199, and the defendant YCF purchased the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation on December 27, 2003 and then acquired the provisional registration of this case from the Korea Land Corporation on November 28, 2005, and it did not comply with the rules of free evaluation of evidence to the effect that the provisional registration of this case was acquired from the Korea Land Corporation on November 28, 2005. At the same time, the court below did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the provisional registration of this case with respect to the selection of the land or the provisional registration of the land as the person entitled to make a registration, and did not accept the evidence.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The court below held that, in the event that Defendant YVP legally takes over the status of the right holder of the above provisional registration from the Korea Land Corporation, the plaintiff is obligated to perform the principal registration procedure based on the above provisional registration, and that the defendant YP agreed not to require the lessee to surrender or remove the building of this case before full payment of the remaining purchase and sale amount of the land of this case is made to the Korea Land Corporation, and even if he completed the registration of forgery of the building sales contract of this case, the above registration is valid in accordance with the substantive rights relation. In light of the records, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as violation of the precedents, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The Supreme Court Decisions pointed out in the ground of appeal are different from this case, and they are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

In light of the purport of Article 49(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, only an attorney-at-law and a certified judicial scrivener may prepare a confirmation document, and furthermore, in light of the purport of Article 49(1) of the same Act, the preparation of a confirmation document is a type of certificate of completion, and even if a certified judicial scrivener is able to assist in the execution of his/her affairs with a certified judicial scrivener, it is not allowed to act on behalf of a certified judicial scrivener for the confirmation document beyond an agency for factual acts, such as the entry of the items required for the confirmation document form, even if he/she is able to assist in performing his/her affairs with a certified judicial scrivener in accordance with the relevant Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4295, Jun.

However, even if a certified judicial scrivener violates the above provisions by acting for a certified judicial scrivener to confirm whether the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration, a certified judicial scrivener shall be liable for damages suffered by the person liable for registration, apart from the fact that a certified judicial scrivener is liable for registration. As such, a certified judicial scrivener whose name the person liable for registration was signed and sealed directly in a written confirmation cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the person liable for

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that registration based on the confirmation document is valid since the plaintiff representative director was affixed a seal on the confirmation document directly, and contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 49 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act or by violating the precedents.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)