Obligations of the guarantor under the Act on Special Measures for Transfer of Real Estate Ownership;

Even if the guarantor issued a guarantee of the ownership of A without confirming and examining materials, such as a sales contract, which can recognize that the owner of the forest and field is “A”, if the four grave owners on the forest and field were to be “A” and “A” were to hear statements from the manager of the grave and surrounding soil on the ground where the four grave owners were the owner of the forest and field in this case, “A” were to be the owner of the forest and field in this case, and the guarantor was not negligent in not knowing that the contents of the guarantee was false.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1312 delivered on November 12, 1974 (Article 750Na(31), Article 757 of the Civil Code, Article 50Na(502No8107 of the Civil Code), Article 74Da1314 delivered on January 28, 197 (Article 750Na(33) of the Civil Code, Article 750Na(205-235 of the Civil Code), Article 77Da2141 delivered on December 27, 197 (Article 750Na(54) of the Civil Code, Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 752 of the Civil Code, Article 240-984)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 74,260,000 and the amount at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum from the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The judgment of the court of 1, 2, 3-2, 15-1 of the above evidence No. 4 (each judgment, evidence No. 4-2, the same as the evidence No. 5-14), 4, 5-7 through 9 (each of the above evidence No. 5-1, No. 8, No. 9-2, the defendant's testimony was issued to the court of 1, No. 97, No. 1, No. 97, No. 9, No. 9, No. 9, and No. 1, No. 2, the defendant's testimony No. 1, No. 9, No. 16-2, No. 1, No. 9, No. 9, No. 9, No. 1, and No. 8, No. 9, No. 4, the defendant's testimony of the court of 1, No. 7, No. 97, No.

In light of the above facts, the defendants, a guarantor of the non-party 5's real estate ownership transfer registration, were issued to the non-party 1 without knowledge that the above guarantee was false, and thus, the registration of ownership preservation was made under the non-party 2's name. Thus, the defendants alleged that the non-party 5's registration was true and that the non-party 1 was liable for damages to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants' testimony as to the above guarantee 4-5's non-party 6's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 4's non-party 7's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 5's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 5's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 2's counter-party 1's counter-2's witness.

Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendants did not own, or did not know, the real estate in this case with knowledge that it was not owned by Nonparty 2, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ tort was established. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is dismissed with no reason to view the scope of damages, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff as the losing party.

Judges lele-Ie-Ie-Ie-Ie (Presiding Judge)