[1] The contents of the duty of care and the case where the violation of the duty of care can be recognized during the auction procedure

[2] Whether an execution officer who conducts an investigation into the current status of the auction house has a duty to verify the resident registration of the householder who moved into the place of the house in order to verify the lease relationship (affirmative)

[3] Whether an execution officer who conducts a survey on the current status of lease relationship with the collective housing has a duty of care to verify whether the head of the household, other than the head of the household who has moved into a move-in under the name of the collective housing indicated in the building management ledger, etc., is the head of the household who has move-in with the name

[4] The case holding that in a case where an execution officer who conducts an investigation of the current status of the lease relationship in the auction procedure for the multi-family housing did not recognize the State's liability on the ground that the execution officer did not have a duty of care to confirm the resident registration of the householder who moved into a move-in with the name of the multi-family housing, which is the name indicated on the building management ledger, and did not confirm the resident registration of the householder who moved into a move-in with the name indicated on the external wall of the multi-family housing, and thus, the execution court prepared a detailed report on the current status of the goods sold in accordance with the investigation report, and thereby caused damage to the lessee who moved into a moving-in with the “Sekdo”, who acquired the ownership of the multi-family housing at the auction

[1] Articles 85 and 105 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 85 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 85 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 9 (3) (see current Article 9 (3) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21683, Aug. 13, 2009) / [4] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Articles 85 and 105 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 9 (3) (see current Article 9 (3) and (4)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21683, Aug. 13, 2009)

[1] Supreme Court Order 2004Ma94 dated Nov. 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 65)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Yu Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Na38157 Decided May 8, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the above building of this case is a multi-family housing located in Seocheon-gu, Incheon Metropolitan Government (Dong name and lot number omitted), and the name on the building management ledger is indicated as clty mileage on its outer wall. The non-party leased 401 of the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") to 43 million won and completed the move-in report on February 12, 2004 with 401, "Cltyb" as the owner of the building of this case, and the execution officer belonging to the above court did not have the effect of the Non-party's move-in report on the above 3-year lease property of this case as the result of voluntary auction procedure at 04,000,000,000 residents' address and 400,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000).

The court below determined that the above execution officer did not fulfill his duty of care to allow perusal of the transfer household of the real estate of this case under the name of "Chye" at the time of inspecting the transfer household of this case, and accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking compensation for damages of the above 43 million won against the defendant, on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the "Chye" and "Chye" are generally recognized as the same name in terms of differences according to the outer indication method.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The purpose is to prevent anyone who wants to purchase from causing unexpected and other damages by accurately ascertaining the current status of the real estate subject to sale and publicly announcing the current status and relationship of the real estate in the auction procedure (see Supreme Court Order 2004Ma94, Nov. 9, 2004). Therefore, an execution officer who investigates the current status of real estate has a duty of due care to accurately investigate the current status of the real estate as well as the applicant for the purchase of the real estate, and the enforcement officer has failed to adopt the method of investigation to be conducted ordinarily in the course of conducting an investigation or to fully review and evaluate the results of the investigation, and thus, if it is difficult for the enforcement officer to compare the current status of the real estate with the actual situation of the real estate subject to sale, it may be recognized that he/she breached his/her duty of due care.

Meanwhile, Article 85(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that matters concerning the relation of possession of real estate, such as the relation of possession of real estate, the rent or the amount of deposit money, shall be included in a lease relationship by enforcement officers, and “matters to be considered at the time of the investigation into the current status in the auction and bidding of real estate” (Article 880 of the Supreme Court’s established rules) provides that “where a house is subject to an investigation into the current status, a report on the current status shall be attached to the report on the current status after obtaining the resident registration, etc. of all the head of the household who reported the transfer of real estate at the place of sale to verify the relationship of lease.” Therefore, the enforcement officer has a duty of care

However, Article 9(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21683, Aug. 13, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that “The address of resident registration cards and other documents related to resident registration of multi-family housing shall be recorded next to the lot number in the name of the multi-family housing according to the building management ledger, etc.” Thus, an execution officer who conducts a survey on the current status of lease relationship of multi-family housing shall, as seen above, verify whether the moving-in report was made with the name of the multi-family housing indicated in the building management ledger, etc. under the premise that the moving-in report was made with the building and the number of houses, barring any special circumstances, barring any other special circumstance, it is sufficient to confirm whether the moving-in report was made with the name of the head of the household who was moving-in report with another name, and it cannot be said that there is a duty of care to verify whether the head of the household who was moving-in with such other name

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that an execution officer is obligated to peruse the transferred household of the real estate in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, based on the circumstances stated in its holding, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty of care to confirm the resident registration of the head of the moving-in report by the execution officer who conducts an investigation into the status of lease relationship with the apartment house, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The purport of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)