In case of lending money as security for real estate, the extent of the duty of due care examined by the creditor.

In general, in lending real estate as collateral, a person holding a security right is sufficient only to confirm the ownership of the person who has created the security right and to confirm the sufficient value of the security. There is no obligation to investigate the authenticity of the ownership of the real estate or the status of the property of a person who borrows other than the secured real estate.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da2186 delivered on April 8, 1975

Countries

Korea Trust Bank Co., Ltd.

Busan District Court (73 Gohap1289, 74A43)

The parts concerning the counterclaim in the original judgment shall be altered as follows:

The counterclaim Defendant shall pay to the counterclaim the amount of KRW 1.5 million with 20,000,000 and 20,000 per annum from April 1, 1973 to the full payment system.

The remainder of the counterclaim and the appeal filed by the counterclaim Defendant and the appeal filed by the Defendant against the main lawsuit are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the part incurred by the counterclaim shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively, through the first and second trials.

(1) Claim of the principal lawsuit

On February 24, 1973, Busan District Court No. 6831, Feb. 23, 1973, Feb. 23, 2003, Busan District Court No. 6832, Feb. 23, 2006, and Feb. 23, 2006, the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of creation of superficies due to the establishment of mortgage contract was implemented on February 23, 200.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(2) Claim of the counterclaim

The counterclaim Defendant shall pay to the counterclaim 1.5 million won with 25 percent interest per annum from April 1, 1973 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the counter defendant.

(1) Purport of appeal by the counterclaim defendant

The part against the counterclaim defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The claim of the Lessee is dismissed.

All of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Lessee through the first and second trials.

(2) The purport of the appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

The part against the defendant (Counterclaim) in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

The counterclaim Defendant shall pay to the counterclaim 1.5 million won with 25 percent interest per annum from April 1, 1973 to the full payment system.

The litigation costs shall be borne by all counterclaims against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) through the first and second trials.

First, I will look at the main claim.

On December 28, 1972, the registration of ownership transfer was made on December 28, 1972 with the non-party 1, who was the defendant of the court below as to Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, and Seo-dong (number omitted) 230, which was the original state-owned land, and on February 8, 1972, the registration of ownership transfer was made on the ground of sale and purchase on December 28, 1952, and the defendant (the non-party 1 is simply the defendant in the future). There is no dispute between the parties, and on the result of the criminal record verification of the court below, the fact that the registration of ownership creation and the registration of superficies creation was made on the ground of the registration of ownership creation and the registration of superficies creation, such as the statement of the purport of the claim in the principal lawsuit, and on the other hand, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 jointly with the defendant 2, who was working as the secretary general and the government-funded assistant as of December 25, 1972.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership by Nonparty 1 on the land of this case shall be null and void of the cause, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of the creation of a superficies on the part of the defendant's name shall also be null and void of the cause.

I examine the following counterclaims.

The registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case that was made in the future of the non-party 1 was caused by an intentional act that is objectively closely related to the performance of duties by the non-party 2 employed by the non-party 2 of the Nam Busan District Tax Office under the non-party 2, and the registration of mortgage and creation of superficies, which was made in the front of the defendant, shall be null and void, shall be recognized in the previous lawsuit. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the defendant as the non-party 2's employer, and the health expenses for such damages.

In addition, if evidence Nos. 1 and 4 of Eul, evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8 of the same Act, the establishment of which is recognized by the testimony of non-party 3 of the witness of the court below, and the testimony of the witness, the whole purport of the pleading is added to the witness's testimony, the defendant, on February 24, 1973, shall trust the registration of ownership transfer under the non-party 1 and obtain the registration of creation of the right to collateral security and superficies, and on February 24, 1973, he agreed to the non-party 1 with the interest rate of 1,50,000 won per month and after the maturity of 1,50,000 won for the above loan and the interest rate of 25,000 won per annum from April 1, 1973 (within the scope of the plaintiff's claim) and damages equivalent to the above amount.

In lending the above money to the non-party 1, the plaintiff did not conduct a detailed investigation as to the collateral and believe that only the non-party 1 did not have any public trust, and did not have any occupation, he did not lend the above money by creating a false loan advance product (Evidence 5) and a loan examination report (Evidence 6) with a person operating a household manufacturing business with a high safety and profitability. Thus, the defendant was at gross negligence on the part of the defendant. However, in case of lending the money by collateral, the secured right holder is sufficient to confirm the ownership of the person who created the security interest and to verify the sufficient value of the collateral, and there is no obligation to investigate the property status of the person who borrowed the money other than the secured real estate. According to the above evidence Nos. 1 and 8, each statement and the testimony of the non-party 3 as to the above above, even if the defendant confirmed the ownership of the land in the name of the non-party 1 in this case by the market price of the non-party 1 in this case and did not have any influence on the appraisal report by the non-party 270.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security and superficies established in the future against the plaintiff's above real estate. Therefore, the judgment of the court below as to the principal lawsuit cited above is just and the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant the amount of 1.5 million won with 23 percent interest per annum from April 1, 1973 to the full payment. Since the counterclaim judgment is unfair with different conclusions, it is unfair to change this conclusion, and there is no reason to change the other claim of the defendant, the plaintiff's appeal, and the appeal against the defendant's principal lawsuit. Accordingly, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89, the proviso of Article 92, the proviso of Article 95, and Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act as to

Judges Gangseo-il (Presiding Judge) Park Jong-ho