The duty of care required for the attorney entrusted with the application for registration of ownership transfer;

An attorney-at-law delegated with the affairs of application for ownership transfer registration of real estate has the duty of care to confirm whether the applicant is a true owner of the target real estate by requiring the applicant to submit or present a certificate of personal seal impression or resident registration certificate prepared pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes or by other equivalent

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 24 million won with 5% interest per annum from December 16, 1987 to December 6, 1989, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be four minutes and three others shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining one by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 50,000,000 won from December 11, 1987 to 30,000,000 won per annum from December 16, 1987 to the date of the pronouncement of this case, and the amount of 5 percent per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(등기부등본), 갑 제3호증의 1(판결), 2(판결확정증명원), 갑 제4호증의 1(형사항소기록표지), 3(공소장), 4(제1회 공판조서), 7,8(각 판결), 갑 제5호증의 1(수사기록), 7(주민등록표등본), 10(인감증명서), 11( 소외 1 진술조서), 갑 제7호증의 6 내지 9(각 피의자신문조서), 갑 제12호증의 2( 소외 2 진술조서), 을 제4호증의 1, 을 제5,6호증(각 어음공정증서), 을 제10호증의 5,6(각 공판조서), 증인 소외 3의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제2호증의 2(영수증), 갑 제13호증(경위서)의 각 기재와 증인 소외 3, 증인 소외 4, 증인 소외 5의 각 일부 증언(다만 위 증인의 각 증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분은 각 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 별지목록 기재 부동산(이하 이 사건 부동산이라 한다.)은 본래 소외 1의 소유인데, 1987.11.말경 소외 2, 소외 6, 소외 7, 소외 5, 소외 8 등이 공모하여 소외 1 몰래 소외 1의 인감도장, 소외 1 명의의 매매계약서, 서울 구로구 오류 2동장 명의의 작성일자 1987.12.9.로 기재된 소외 1의 주민등록표등본, 발급일자 1987.12.9.로 기재된 소외 1의 매도용 인감증명서, 강남등기소장 명의의 이 사건 부동산에 대한 등기권리증을 각 위조한 사실, 소외 5는 1987.12.7. 서울 종로 3가 소재 피고 사무실에서 피고에게 앞서 위조한 위 인감도장, 매매계약서, 주민등록표등본, 인감증명서, 등기권리증을 제시하면서 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 소외 1로부터 소외 8 앞으로 1987.12.9. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기 신청사무의 처리를 위임하였던바, 피고는 소외 5가 이 사건 부동산의 진정한 소유권자인 소외 1인지 여부를 확인하지 아니한 채 1987.12.10.경 이 사건 부동산에 관한 소외 8 앞으로의 소유권이전등기신청을 하여 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 서울민사지방법원 강남등기소 1987.12.10. 접수 제15633호로 1987.12.9. 매매를 원인으로 하여 소외 8 앞으로의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실, 이어 원고는 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 경료된 소외 8 명의의 소유권이전등기가 정당한 것으로 믿고 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 같은 등기소 1987.12.15. 접수 제159293호로 채무자 소외 8, 채권자 원고, 채권최고액 45,000,000원으로 하는 내용의 근저당권설정등기를 경료한 다음 같은 달 16. 소외 8에게 금 30,000,000원을 대여한 사실, 그후 이 사건 부동산의 진정한 소유권자인 소외 1은 소외 8 및 원고를 상대로 서울지방법원 동부지원 88가합429호 로 소외 8 명의의 소유권이전등기와 원고 명의의 위 근저당권설정등기의 말소등기절차이행 청구의 소를 제기하여 1988.6.22. 같은 법원으로부터 소외 8 명의의 소유권이전등기는 원인을 결여한 무효의 등기이고 이에 터잡은 원고 명의의 위 근저당권설정등기 역시 무효로서 말소되어야 한다는 취지의 판결을 선고받아 그 무렵 위 판결이 확정되어 소외 8 명의의 소유권이전등기와 원고 명의의 위 근저당권설정등기가 말소된 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 위 인정에 반하는 증인 소외 4, 증인 소외 3, 증인 소외 5의 각 일부 증언은 이를 각 믿지 아니하고 달리 반증 없는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 변호사인 피고로서는 소외 5로부터 이 사건 소유권이전등기신청사무를 위임받았으면 법령에 의하여 작성된 인감증명서나 주민등록증을 제출 또는 제시케 하거나 기타 이에 준하는 방법으로 소외 5가 이 사건 부동산의 진정한 소유권자인 소외 1인지 여부를 확인한 후 이를 처리하여야 할 주의의무가 있을 뿐만 아니라 소외 5가 제출한 소외 1의 인감증명서 및 주민등록표등본의 발급 및 작성일자가 위에서 본 위임당시의 날짜인 1987.12.7.보다도 후일인 1987.12.9.으로 기재되어 있는 점 등 특별히 의심할만한 정황이 있었으므로 피고가 통상 필요한 주의를 기울였으면 소외 5가 이 사건 부동산의 진정한 소유권자인 소외 1이 아니라는 사실을 알 수 있었음에도, 이를 각 게을리하여 앞서 본 바와 같은 소유권이전등기를 경료해 주었고, 한편, 원고는 원인무효인 위 소유권이전등기를 유효한 것으로 믿고 이를 담보로 소외 8에게 금원을 대여하였다가 진정한 소유권자인 소외 1의 제소로 원고의 이 사건 부동산에 대한 근저당권설정등기가 말소됨으로써 손해를 입게 되었으니 피고는 원고에게 이를 배상할 책임이 있다 할 것이다.

On the other hand, if the above facts and the witness testimony of the non-party 3 shared the purport of oral argument, the plaintiff was a person who has been engaged in the bond business for a multi-year period and was well aware of the details of the registration, etc. necessary for the loan of the above money, and the non-party 8 purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party 1, a bond broker before the loan of the above money on December 1987, and the non-party 3 suggested that the non-party 8 want to borrow the money as collateral, and as mentioned above, the date of preparation and the issuance of the above money was not yet arrived at the time of the above, the non-party 1's certified copy of the certificate of personal seal impression as stated as of December 9, 197, and the above money was lent to the non-party 8, and there is no other counter-proof evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff can be found that the non-party 1's share transfer registration and the certificate of personal seal impression were forged to the extent that the damages were invalid.

However, as seen earlier, the defendant, as the representative of the plaintiff, has been negligent in performing the duty of care to verify whether the non-party 5 is the non-party 1. Thus, the non-party 3's negligence should also be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for to the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's negligence. However, the acceptance of the application for ownership transfer registration of this case is the defendant and the non-party 3 who is not in the position of accepting the above application for ownership transfer registration of this case has no duty to investigate and confirm whether the non-party 5 is the non-party 1. Thus, the defendant's defense based on this premise is groundless.

2. Furthermore, examining the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable for, barring special circumstances, it shall be equivalent to the amount paid by the Plaintiff to Nonparty 8 on the ground that the Plaintiff believed that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 8 was effective, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 to Nonparty 8 on December 16, 1987, as seen earlier. As such, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff is KRW 30,000,000, but considering the fact that the Plaintiff was negligent in the ratio as seen earlier, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable for to compensate for to the Plaintiff shall be KRW 24,00,000 ( KRW 30,000,000).

However, the defendant claimed that the above amount should be deducted from the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for to the plaintiff because he received from the non-party 3 as compensation for the plaintiff's damages. Thus, if the defendant collected the whole purport of the pleading from the non-party 9-1,2 (each receipt) without dispute over each establishment, it is recognized that the non-party 3 paid 3,00,000 won to the plaintiff. Meanwhile, according to the evidence and the witness's testimony, the non-party 3 agreed that the plaintiff should be liable for damages to the plaintiff for the continuous business transaction with the plaintiff and the non-party 8, and there is no other evidence, so the above 3,00,000 won paid to the plaintiff is a separate contract from the above defendant's tort, and thus, the defendant's above statement should not be deducted from the damages for the above reason that the defendant is not liable for the deduction from the damages to the plaintiff.

3. In addition to the above damages, the plaintiff believed that the registration of ownership transfer in the above real estate was effective, and the non-party 8's above real estate was transferred to the non-party 80, 15635 on December 10, 1987, and the non-party 8, the creditor, the maximum debt amount of 100,000 won was transferred to the non-party 8 on December 11, 198, and the non-party 1 was lent 50,000 won to the non-party 8, and then the defendant is not liable for damages caused by the cancellation of the above registration of ownership transfer. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 8's above registration of ownership transfer was not valid for the non-party 8's above real estate under the non-party 1's name, and that the non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 1's statement on the non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 1's statement.

4. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages amounting to 24,00,000 won of the above recognition and the above amount to the above amount, from December 16, 1987 to December 6, 1989, the sentencing date of this case, the five percent per annum under the Civil Act, and from the next day to the full payment date, the damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as well as the remaining claims are without merit. This decision is delivered as per Disposition by applying Article 89, Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 19 of the provisional execution declaration, and Article 6 of the above Special Cases Act.

Judges Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Judge)