The case holding that the guarantor under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act was not negligent in performing his duty of care as a good manager.

The guarantee stipulated in Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act means that the applicant for registration and the father of registration on the registry are the same person with due care as a good manager. As such, the above guarantor comparisons the forged resident registration certificates presented by the deceased at the time of guarantee with the photographs attached to the forged resident registration certificates, and the above resident registration certificates with the certified copy of the resident registration certificates and the forged resident registration certificates, and it is not easy to find out that the above documents were forged on the face, the above guarantor is not deemed to have neglected the fiduciary duty at the time of guarantee.

Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and two others

Gangnam Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (84 Gohap215 decided)

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 12,00,000 won with an amount equal to 25 percent per annum from July 23, 1984 to the full payment date.

Litigation Costs shall be borne by the Defendants of the first and second instance courts and a declaration of provisional execution.

No. 4, No. 5, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 1, No. 2 (No. 1-1)-1, No. 2-1, No. 3-1, No. 4-1, and No. 2-1, No. 4-6 (No. 4)-2-2, and the plaintiffs’ name and seal No. 4-2-2-3-3-4, each of the above-mentioned real estate registration certificates was issued by the owners of the above-mentioned real estate using the same title as the above-mentioned real estate registration certificates; the above-mentioned real estate registration certificates were issued to the non-party 4-1, No. 24, No. 3-4, No. 5, No. 44, and the above-mentioned real estate registration certificates were issued to the non-party 2-party 4; and the plaintiffs’ name and seal No. 9-2-3, No. 97, No.

As the cause of the instant claim, Defendant 1 and 3 neglected to exercise due care as a good manager even if the above person was not Nonparty 4, and thus, guaranteed that the above person was not the party 4, and the plaintiffs were the party 1 and 3 lent the above money to the party 4 who was believed to lawfully acquire the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the real estate in this case, but the above establishment registration of the right to the right to the right to the real estate in this case was not followed by the owner's intention, and thus, the plaintiffs lost the right to the right to the right to the right to the loan in this case, and the above person 1 and 3 was unable to collect the loan from the above person because his whereabouts and name are unknown, and eventually the plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to the above loan in this case. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 3 asserted that they were jointly and severally liable with the defendant 2, who was his employer, and the defendants asserted that they were liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that when the certificate of completion of registration concerning the right of the person liable for registration has been destroyed or lost at the time of applying for registration, two or more adults who registered ownership in the registry shall attach a document guaranteeing that the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration. In this case, the guarantee is actually verified by the person liable for registration and the person liable for registration on the registry with the care of a good manager that the person liable for registration is the same as the person liable for registration on the registry, and the above guarantor is liable for compensation if damages were incurred due to negligence of the above duty of care and guarantee. Thus, in this case, according to the facts acknowledged above, the above defendants were not aware of the above facts as to whether they neglected the above duty of care at the time of the above guarantee, and the above defendants neglected to prove the above facts and evidence Nos. 26 and No. 26 of the above certificate.

In other words, Defendant 1 and 3 agreed that when any defect occurred between the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in acquiring the above right to collateral security at the time of the above guarantee, the defendants are liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. Thus, according to the evidence No. 3-4 stated earlier, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 1 and 3 bears the responsibility when the accident occurred at the time of the above guarantee. However, this is clear to the purport that the above defendants neglected to exercise the duty of care as a good manager in the above guarantee, and therefore, the above documentary evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendants, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Final (Presiding Judge)