1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The real estate in which the wife population H, I, J, and K are four parcels of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the first instance trial is owned by Co-Defendant D (former: E; hereinafter “D”) and Dong name D (former: 1931; hereinafter “Dong name D”).

As to the instant real estate on January 30, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer”) under the name of the co-defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) (No. 16670 and No. 1671) (hereinafter “C”), the collective security holder, the Plaintiffs, the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,000,000, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) to the debtor C was completed.

As a certified judicial scrivener who operates a certified judicial scrivener office, the defendant received delegation from D of the application for ownership transfer registration and performed it.

around that time, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation to the Plaintiffs that “seller (D) had completed the registration of ownership transfer to C and confirmed the seller’s identity” (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs leased C KRW 300,000,000 to C as collateral for the said collateral at a rate of 2.5% on March 30, 2015 on the date of repayment.

(hereinafter “the instant loan”). The instant registration of ownership transfer and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage are proved to have been registered by forged documents around February 10, 2015, and all of the registrations were cancelled on June 8, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiffs' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the defendant failed to verify the authenticity of documents submitted Nos. 4 by neglecting his/her duty of care as a certified judicial scrivener.

In addition, the defendant prepared and ordered the written confirmation of this case to the plaintiffs.

The registration of ownership transfer of this case and the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void.