Where a registrar receives an application for registration with a forged resident registration card or a certificate of personal seal impression, etc., whether a registered public official is negligent

Even if a registered public official has received an application for registration with a forged resident registration card or a certificate of personal seal impression, etc., if the above documents were prepared by another administrative agency other than the registry, and thus it is difficult for the registered public official to specifically understand the form or preparation practices thereof, even if he pays ordinary attention, it is difficult to see that the above documents are not genuine, and therefore, the registered public official violates his duty of care to observe in exercising his formal investigation authority.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Kim Yong-seok et al.

Korea

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of 6,00,000 won and the amount of 5% per annum from July 28, 1988 to the date of the decision of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are acknowledged as being comprehensively admitted to the testimony of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-1, 3-14, Gap evidence 4-6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 8-1 through 3, and witness Kim Jong-o.

A. At first, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seocheon-dong 7-231, 1840 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”) had been registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 1, the owner of the instant site.

B. On June 30, 198, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 concluded a sales contract with regard to the plaintiffs and the site of this case on the ground that Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 are women with a large of 60 households in the name of Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 under the pretext of Nonparty 1, 198.

(1) Sales amount is set at KRW 250,000,000.

(2)The down payment of KRW 25,000,000 shall be paid on the date of the contract.

(3) The remainder shall be paid after the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs is made on the instant site.

C. The Plaintiffs paid the down payment of KRW 25,000,000 to Nonparty 1, etc. on the day of the above sales contract.

D. On July 28, 198, Nonparty 1, etc. delegated the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty 4 of the judicial secretary, and issued the delegation for registration of real estate in the name of the title holder and the registration of ownership transfer. Nonparty 4 submitted the above documents to the public official of the registration office of Gwanak-gu Seoul District Court for filing a registration of ownership transfer, and received the registration certificate after completing each share transfer in the name of the plaintiffs on the instant site.

E. On July 28, 198, the Plaintiffs believed that each of the above shares transfer registrations and the registration certificates issued under the names of the Plaintiffs were true, and paid to Nonparty 1, etc. the remainder KRW 225,000,000 according to the above sales contract.

F. Thereafter, the Seoul District Court rendered a lawsuit against the plaintiffs to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership due to the invalidity of the cause as to the site of this case and rendered a decision to order the cancellation of each transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs on August 18, 1989 as Seoul District Court Decision 88Gahap15712.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. In receiving and examining the above application documents for registration submitted by Nonparty 1, etc., the public official of the above registration office under the defendant's jurisdiction accepted and examined the above application documents for registration, and the resident registration card (No. 3-4) and a certificate of personal seal impression (No. 3-8) in the above le-style le-style son's name among these documents are clearly forged documents in appearance for the following reasons. Thus, even if he could have known the forgery, he accepted the forged documents due to negligence that neglected the examination duty required by the registration official and caused the transfer of shares in the plaintiffs' name to be made in relation

(1) The address of the resident registration record card and the certificate of personal seal impression must be recorded by the public official in charge of the Dong office at each transferred address at the time of transfer, so the address should be changed each time when the address is changed. However, the address of the resident registration record card and the certificate of personal seal impression should be written as the body of the same person.

(2) The method of entering the address column of resident registration record cards and certificates of seal impression is a practice that public officials in charge affix the rubber seal affixed with the name of Si/Gu/Gu/Dong and enter the rubber seal affixed with the name of Si/Gun/Gu/Dong in the lux book. The address column of the resident registration record cards and certificates of seal impression of this case is written with the entire address space

(3) The confirmation letter of the public official in charge of the transfer and transfer column of the resident registration record card has a seal affixed on each transfer domicile at each time of the move-in report, and the official seal should be changed at each time of the change of address. However, the transfer and transfer column of the resident registration record card of this case have the same official seal.

(4) If the date of transfer and the date of report are different, if the administrative district is changed, the cause for the change of the resident registration record card is generally recorded in each resident registration record card, and there is no entry in the change column of the resident registration record card of this case.

(5) Of the entry “the date of issuance at the bottom of the resident registration record card of this case” on July 28, 1988, a paper was attached to the last 8 of 1988, the said 7 and the said 28 pages, and the paper was written above numbers.

(6) The instant certificate of personal seal impression was prepared in accordance with the document form that was not used at the time.

(7) If there is an empty space in the address column of the certificate of seal imprint, it is necessary to affix a rubber seal to the blank or to affix a seal to the blank, and then affix a confirmation seal to the blank, but the column of the address column of the certificate of seal imprint in paragraph 9 of this case remains vacant without attaching a rubber seal to the blank, or without attaching a seal to the blank.

(8) On the right upper corner of the certificate of seal impression, there is a space for an applicant to indicate his identity or his agent, so the indication and the seal of the relevant public official should be affixed accordingly, but the certificate of seal impression in this case does not have a seal on the principal column, and the proxy column was deleted by attaching a paper.

B. The plaintiffs, who believed that the above share transfer registration was duly made, purchased the land in this case from fake leok, which was loaded by Nonparty 1, etc. and disbursed 250,000,000 won as the price. Since each share transfer registration in the names of the plaintiffs was placed in a place to be cancelled due to the invalidation of the cause, the plaintiffs suffered damage equivalent to the same amount.

C. The defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the negligence of the pertinent registrar in performing his duties.

3. Determination

First of all, this paper examines whether the examination and repair of the above registration application documents by the registration officer would be caused by negligence in the execution of duties.

According to Articles 40, 41, 53, and 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, a registration official has a formal review of the methods and obligations of a registration official. The registration official is obliged to examine the formal authenticity of the above document by means of the documents required to be submitted and the relevant register book, and if he neglects to do so, the negligence of the registration official may be recognized.

According to Gap evidence 3-4 (resident registration record card), Gap evidence 3-8, 12, 13 (Personal Resident Registration Record Card), Eul evidence 8-1 (Personal Resident Registration Record Card), 2 (Resident Registration Card), and 3 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) each, the address column in the above le-style house name (No. 3-4) and the certificate of seal imprint (No. 3-8) appears to be the same person with the exception of paragraph 10, and the above pent are written with only pent, the transfer of the above resident registration record card and certificate of seal imprint, and the confirmation seal in the transfer column are deemed to be all identical seals except paragraph 10; the above 8-year identification record card and certificate of seal imprint are not written in the column for change of the above resident registration record card, and the above 8-year identification number and 28-day identification number on the right page of the date on which the above 1988-year identification card was issued, and the plaintiffs cannot be found to have attached the above 9-year identification column to the above 9-year stamp.

First of all, the fact that the above certificate of the personal seal impression was based on the document form which was not used at the time is not accepted in light of the above facts of recognition, and there are cases where it is not necessary to record the fact that there is no indication in the change column of the above resident registration card because there is no reason to change the fact that there is no indication in the change column of the above resident registration card. Thus, there is no reason to suspect the authenticity of the above document, and there is no indication in the upper right column of the above certificate of the personal seal impression with the number on the upper right page of the above certificate of the personal seal impression attached to the paper. In light of the above facts

However, in the above resident registration record card and the address column for the above certificate of personal seal impression, the name of the Si/Gu/Gu/Dong is written without being affixed with rubber, and it appears to be the pen of the same person, and the transfer of the above resident registration record card and the confirmation column for transfer are the same as the same stamp image as the letter of confirmation. In addition, the above address for the above certificate of personal seal impression is omitted, and the right upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper lower part of the facts acknowledged as above. However, in light of the fact that the above documents are documents prepared by other administrative agencies than the registry office, it is difficult to view that the above documents are not genuine, even if they have exercised ordinary attention, and therefore, it cannot be said that the registrar violated the duty of care to observe when exercising its formal review authority, and there is no other evidence to recognize the negligence

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the registrar in charge of the above transfer registration of ownership was negligent in performing his duties is dismissed as it is no longer reasonable.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)