beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be the Gwangju High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the remaining Defendants’ grounds of appeal other than Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the lower court determined that Defendant C, D, and deceased E (hereinafter “Defendant guarantor”) was liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff who entered into a loan contract with the belief that the registration was true, on the grounds that Defendant C, D, and deceased E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) issued a false warranty against the negligence of failure to verify the owner of the instant land, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in B based on the certificate issued based on the certification certificate
Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ defense that the statute of limitations expired on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage that was completed in the future of the Plaintiff runs from
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the right to claim damages and the extinctive prescription, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Ground of appeal by Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province
A. Article 2(1) of the former State Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 7584, Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter “former State Compensation Act”) which applies to the instant case provides that “the State or a local government shall compensate for damages to any other person when a public official is in violation of the statutes and intentionally or negligently, while performing his/her duties.” The term “public official” refers to any person who is not limited to a person who is a public official under the State Public Officials Act or the Local Public Officials Act, but is widely entrusted to perform his/her duties and is actually engaged in his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Da2253, Nov. 24, 1970).
Defendant . The lower court.