(a) In cases where a purchaser of real estate from a person who illegally completed the registration of another person’s real estate loses its ownership due to a fraudulent act committed by the person involved in the illegal registration (=the amount equivalent to the sale price)

B. Whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between Gap's act of involvement in the tort and Byung's loss if Gap involved in Eul's act of making Gap's non-registered official under Eul's name but Eul's act of trading was not involved (affirmative)

A. In a case where a purchaser of real estate from a person who illegally completed the registration of another person’s real estate loses its ownership due to an action filed by the genuine right holder, the amount equivalent to the purchase price that was paid in belief that the party involved in the illegal registration could acquire the real estate.

B. The tort B and the purchaser’s damage caused by the third party’s reliance on the registration. Thus, barring any special circumstance, there is a proximate causal relation between the Party A’s act and the purchaser’s damage.

Articles 760 and 763 of the Civil Act (Article 393)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da33070 Decided March 14, 1978 (Gong1978, 10731) 81Da1006, 81Meu58 (Gong1982, 812) Decided July 27, 1982 (Gong1992, 2235)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na17114 delivered on August 28, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff against Defendant 2 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Part on Defendant 1

If a purchaser of a real estate from a person who has completed an illegal registration of another person's real estate after the purchaser loses ownership due to an action filed by the genuine right holder, damages arising from an illegal act committed by the party involved in the illegal registration shall be the amount equivalent to the purchase price paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da2423, Mar. 14, 1978; 81Da106, Jul. 27, 1982; 81Meu558, respectively). In the same regard, the court below held that, in the same regard, the penalty for which the plaintiff sold the land to the non-party 1 for compensation after the purchase by the non-party 1, the genuine right holder of the share of the land of this case, or the purchase price paid by the purchase from the non-party 2, the real right holder of the land of this case, does not constitute ordinary damages, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding legal principles

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Part on Defendant 2

1. According to the facts found by the court below, Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 to make the appearance on the registry as if he had the right to dispose of one half of the land of this case owned by Nonparty 2, and purchased one half of the share from Defendant 1 with trust in the registration of this case and completed the registration, thereby causing property damage due to the cancellation of the registration due to the above non-party 2's lawsuit. Thus, if the facts exist, the defendants are liable for damages to the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

2. The court below determined that there was no proximate causal relation between Defendant 2’s act and Defendant 2’s act on the ground that Defendant 2’s act did not have any contact with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s act on the ground that Defendant 2 did not participate in the Plaintiff’s transaction process since he did not have any contact with Defendant 1, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, who conspired with Defendant 1, would have easily predicted that he would incur property damage by purchasing the instant land in trust in the process of acquiring the shares of Nonparty 2, and that there was no proximate causal relation between Defendant 2’s act and the Plaintiff’s loss after the lapse of two years, barring any special circumstance, since there was no causal relation between Defendant 2’s act and the Plaintiff’s loss after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the future, and that there was no causal relation between Defendant 2’s sale and the Plaintiff’s loss after the lapse of two years.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of causation in tort, which affected the incomplete deliberation. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal against Defendant 2, the part against the Plaintiff against the same Defendant among the judgment below is reversed and remanded. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the Plaintiff are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)