The case holding that Gap, Byung, Jung, and the State are liable for damages to the property of Eul due to joint tort in case where Gap, Eul, and the State are liable for compensating for damages to Eul, in case where Eul, Eul, and the State are liable for compensating for damages to the property of Eul, in case where Eul, Eul, and the State are liable for compensating for damages to Eul, in case where Eul, a multi-household house under its ownership had completed the registration of establishment of a new mortgage, forged documents related to the registration, and delegated the registration of cancellation to the attorney-at-law, who was the attorney-law

In a case where Gap had completed the registration of creation of a mortgage for his own multi-household housing in order to secure Eul's loan loan debts, and subsequently conspired to forge the registration documents, and then delegated the registration of cancellation to the attorney-at-law who was in charge of the registration of establishment of a mortgage; Gap sold the above multi-household housing to non-resident; and the registration officer in charge of the registration of establishment of a mortgage for some households was restored upon Eul's claim after Eul sold the above multi-household housing, the case held that Gap and Byung's act of forging the registration documents, forgery of the documents related to the registration, confirmation of whether the person responsible for registration was the person responsible for registration, and preparation of the documents confirming that he was entrusted with the registration, and the registration officer in charge was negligent in performing the ordinary duty of care in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes while examining the application for registration, and thus, the registration of establishment of a mortgage under Eul's name was illegally cancelled due to negligence in the ordinary duty of care in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, Gap, Byung, and the State is liable to compensate for property losses incurred due to the maximum amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount.

Articles 393, 760, 763 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 40(1) (see current Article 24(1)), 49 (see current Article 51), and 55 (see current Article 29) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (Amended by Act No. 8435, May 17, 2007)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Song-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Dadam, Attorney Jeong Jae-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2009Da17257, 2010Gahap10801 Decided March 31, 2011

January 17, 2013

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 150 million won with 50 million won per annum from July 21, 2006 to January 24, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 150 million won with 5% interest per annum from July 21, 2006 to the last delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff was reduced within the purport of appeal by reducing the purport of appeal by clearly stating that the plaintiff is a partial claim at the trial, as above).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case

1) Defendant 2 and Nonparty 1 are Defendant 1’s children, and Nonparty 1 lost Korean nationality on October 16, 1990 and became a foreign nationality Korean under Article 2 subparag. 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (However, the Minister of Justice notified Nonparty 1 of this on July 5, 2005).

2) From June 23, 2005 to 2005, Defendant 1 borrowed money several times from Nonparty 1. On June 23, 2005, Defendant 1 prepared a loan certificate with the effect that the loan, etc. will be combined with the loan, etc. (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”), and on June 24, 2005, each multi-household house (hereinafter “each multi-household house of this case”) indicated in the attached Table (1) owned by himself to secure the loan obligation of this case (hereinafter “each multi-household house of this case”) as to each multi-household house of this case as indicated in the attached Table (1), which was owned by himself, on June 23, 2005, the maximum debt amount was KRW 60 million on the ground of the mortgage contract of this case, and Defendant 1’s neighboring mortgage registration (Seoul Seo-gu District Court’s Seoul Western District Court’s registration No. 23651, Jun. 24, 2005).

B. Illegal cancellation, etc. of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case

1) On January 206, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to illegally cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring facilities by forging the documents related to the registration of the Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and then, through Nonparty 2’s form delivered to Nonparty 1’s office office, expressed his intent to terminate the instant mortgage contract and cancel the registration of the establishment; hereinafter “the instant termination certificate”) and the signature written on Nonparty 1’s written confirmation of Nonparty 1’s general consul’s signature (No. 7-9), Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1’s letter of delegation (the person responsible for registration and the person entitled to registration entrusted Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 3 the application for cancellation of the registration of the instant neighboring facilities to Nonparty 1 on January 6, 2006, Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1’s general consul Nonparty 1’s signature and written confirmation of Nonparty 1’s signature and written confirmation of Nonparty 7’s signature and written confirmation of Nonparty 1’s signature and written confirmation of Nonparty 3’s qualifications for the instant termination.

2) On January 206, 2006, Defendant 1 delegated to Defendant 3 the application for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case to Nonparty 2 through Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the application for registration of this case”). Defendant 3, via Nonparty 2, submitted the forged registration documents to Nonparty 2, who was aware of the circumstances. Defendant 3, filed an application for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case with the Seoul Western District Court’s Seoul Western District Court’s Office under the Republic of Korea on January 20, 206 (the record of Nonparty 2, prior to Nonparty 3’s seal affixed on the confirmation of this case’s official seal, did not go through the process of confirming the applicant’s identity through the resident registration certificate in front of Nonparty 1. However, it is apparent that Defendant 3’s official seal was prior to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s act of forgery, and the registration of this case was cancelled due to the completion of the registration of this case’s establishment of a mortgage of this case.

3) On April 25, 2007, Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the crime of forging official documents at the Seoul Western District Court on April 25, 2007, and the judgment was finalized on May 23, 2007. Defendant 2 was issued a non-prosecution disposition of the suspension of indictment by means of forging official documents at the Seoul Western District Court’s Office on March 14, 2007.

C. Plaintiff’s acquisition, etc. of ownership of each multi-household of this case

1) On June 23, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant 1 for each of the instant multi-households with the purchase price of KRW 535 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The down payment of KRW 20 million is KRW 55 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 460 million on June 26, 2006, and the remainder of KRW 460 million on July 5, 2006, each of the instant multi-households with the implementation of the procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership. Of the remainder, KRW 414 million on the remainder, the lease deposit and the secured loan repayment obligation for each of the instant multi-households (the obligation to return the above lease deposit is the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 314 million on each of the instant multi-households, which is the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 14 million on each of the instant multi-households, which is the obligation to return the secured loan of KRW 12,4000,000.

2) According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid Defendant 1 the sum of the down payment, intermediate payment, and remainder on each of the above payment dates KRW 121 million to Defendant 1,00,000,000, and took over the aforementioned lease deposit and the obligation to refund secured loans with exemption from liability. Defendant 1 completed the registration of transfer of ownership for each of the instant multi-household houses to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2006.

3) Upon acquiring each multi-household house in the instant case, the Plaintiff spent KRW 7,955,00,000 for acquisition tax, and registration tax, KRW 8,020,00 for registration tax, and thereafter, paid KRW 14 million for repair and repair costs.

4) On September 5, 2007, the Plaintiff fully repaid the obligation to return the secured loan, which it acquired with exemption, and the following: (i) during the period from August 31, 2007 to April 16, 2009, the Plaintiff disposed of 9 households (No. 101, 103, 104, 201, 202, 203, 204, 204, 304, and 304) among each multi-household housing of this case.

In the case of Nonparty 3,5 million won on September 21, 2007, the purchaser’s temporary sale of the number of votes included in the main sentence, 101.35 million won on cancellation registration, Nonparty 3, 2,103, 3,5 million won on September 28, 2007 x Nonparty 4 on August 31, 2004 x Nonparty 5 x Nonparty 6, 5 million won on August 31, 2007 x Nonparty 6, 5 million won on April 31, 2007 x Nonparty 3, 7, 80 million won on April 16, 2008 x Nonparty 30 million on April 3, 2008 x Nonparty 3, 7, 800 won on August 31, 2007 x Nonparty 300,500 won on August 31, 2007 x Nonparty 37, 2005.

D. Judgment Nos. 1 and 2 of this case

1) On April 26, 2006, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit against Defendant 1 on April 26, 2006 against the Seoul Western District Court 2006Kahap4120, which sought payment of partial amount of KRW 150 million out of the loans based on the loan certificate of this case, and the statutory delay damages therefrom, and was rendered a favorable judgment on December 7, 2007, and Defendant 1’s appeal was dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 17, 2008 (hereinafter “instant judgment 1”).

2) On May 7, 2008, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, etc. against the Seoul Western District Court 2008Gahap5721, which sought the implementation of the procedure for the restoration registration of the establishment registration of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on December 17, 2008, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 7, 2009 (hereinafter “instant case 2”) by the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, etc. without filing an appeal.

3) According to the instant judgment on November 1, 2010, Nonparty 1 completed the registration of recovery of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage on five households among each of the instant multi-households (101, 201, 203, 204, and 303-5 households among the nine households that the Plaintiff disposed of in another as indicated in the instant attached Table) pursuant to the judgment on November 1, 2010.

4) In early 2009, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 as fraud on the ground that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 acquired the amount equivalent to the purchase price from the Plaintiff by selling each multi-household house of this case by hiding the fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 illegally deleted the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case. Accordingly, on October 30, 2009, Defendant 1 was sentenced two years to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul Western District Court on January 15, 2010 and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 15, 201).

[Based on Recognition] A without dispute, evidence 1 through 5, evidence 7-1 through 12, evidence 8 through 11, evidence 13-1 through 3, evidence 14-1 through 4, evidence 14-1 through 17, evidence 5, evidence 5-B or 3-4, evidence 5-1 through 13, evidence 5-2 or 7-1 through 8-3, evidence 9-1 through 6, evidence 5-2 or 10-1 through 26, respectively, the testimony of Non-Party 2 in the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings, the testimony of Non-Party 3

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination as to the establishment of tort liability by Defendants 1 and 2

According to the above facts, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 forged documents related to registration and deleted the registration of creation of a new mortgage of this case under public offering, and Defendant 1 sold each multi-household of this case to the Plaintiff and acquired the amount equivalent to the purchase price from the Plaintiff. As long as the act of forging documents related to registration by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 and the act of fraud by Defendant 1 itself constitutes a tort, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are liable to compensate for damages to the Plaintiff’s property due to the above joint tort.

B. Determination as to whether Defendant 3 and Korea's tort liability is established

1) Relevant statutes

(4) The following documents shall be submitted when an applicant for registration under the provisions of Article 40 (Written Application for Registration of Seal Imprint) (1) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 8435, May 17, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) enters into force on January 1, 208. The same shall apply to cases where an applicant for registration applies for registration under the provisions of Article 40 (Written Application for Registration of Real Estate Rights) (hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) Defendant 3’s breach of official duties under the former Registration of Real Estate Act

A) In light of the purport of Article 49(1) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act, only an attorney-at-law and a certified judicial scrivener may prepare a confirmation document, and furthermore, in light of the same Article, the preparation of a confirmation document is of the nature of evidence completion, and even if an attorney-at-law may assist in the performance of his/her duties pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is not allowed to conduct a confirmation on his/her identity by proxy beyond an agent for factual acts such as entries in the confirmation document form. In addition, according to the purport of each provision of Article 49 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, in cases of loss of a registration certificate, a certified judicial scrivener and a certified judicial scrivener are conducted on behalf of a registrar in principle, such confirmation document is conducted on behalf of a registrar in the process of confirming whether a person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person responsible for registration and the person responsible for registration on the registry is the same, and where the attorney or his/her agent is not specifically present a certificate or detailed method.

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant statutes, the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above: ① Defendant 3 did not obtain a certificate of completion of registration or a written notice of completion of registration of his right from the delegated person and the person responsible for registration; thus, in order to file the instant application for registration on behalf of Nonparty 1 on behalf of Nonparty 1, Defendant 3 is required to prepare and submit a written confirmation under Article 49(1) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act; ② Defendant 3, in preparing the instant written confirmation, made the person responsible for registration act on behalf of Nonparty 2, who is the head of the office, to confirm his identity, beyond acting on behalf of Nonparty 2, including the descriptions required in the form of confirmation; ③ Nonparty 2 failed to go through the process of confirming his identity by means of a resident registration certificate, passport, driver’s license, etc. before attending the attorney’s office; and Nonparty 2’s official seal affixed by Defendant 3 on the instant confirmation in front of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3’s negligence in preparing the registration of this case.

C) Therefore, Defendant 3 is liable for compensating for the Plaintiff’s property damage caused by the tort (if an employer is liable) committed by Nonparty 2 and each of the above joint tort (if a joint tort is held liable) or by Nonparty 2, who is an employee.

3) Violation of official duties under the former Registration of Real Estate Act by Defendant Republic of Korea (the competent registrar)

A) The registrar has the authority to examine whether the documents necessary for the application for registration were submitted under the former Registration of Real Estate Act, and whether the documents submitted are authentic in the form thereof. However, there is no authority to examine whether the documents submitted are consistent with the legal relationship under the substantive law. Thus, the registrar must examine the validity of the application for registration by reviewing the documents submitted in the form of a document itself or by comparing them with the register. In the case where it is recognized as an application for registration in the form of a forged document as a result of the examination by such a method, i.e., where it is formally failed, it shall be dismissed. However, in the case where it is requested to process the case of mass registration promptly and appropriately, it cannot be said that the registrar was at fault of the registrar, such as all the cases where the documents submitted were forged, and all the cases where the registrar accepted the application for registration, and even if he had performed the ordinary duty of care required for the average person in charge of the registration in the process of examining the above method, it can be easily recognized that the documents submitted were forged and rejected only if it was legitimate.

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant statutes, the following circumstances acknowledged by Nonparty 1’s obligor for registration, namely, whether the documents required for the application for registration under Article 40 of the former Registration Act were properly attached, and if necessary documents are not furnished, the applicant should dismiss the application for registration unless the defect can be corrected and the applicant made correction within a relatively short period of time. (ii) Nonparty 1 did not have the system for signing and sealing the applicant for registration, and the United States’s seal impression was not necessarily required for the applicant for registration to have the signature and seal impression affixed to the applicant for registration, and thus, Nonparty 1’s signature and seal impression was not necessarily required by law to have the applicant for registration as to the above part of the application for registration, even if Nonparty 1’s signature and seal impression was not the applicant for registration, but the applicant’s signature and seal was not the applicant for registration, but the applicant’s signature and seal affixed to each of the above part of the documents for registration, and thus, it is necessary for Nonparty 1 to prove that the applicant was not the applicant for registration of this case.

C) As to this, Defendant Republic of Korea’s application for registration of a foreigner or a Korean national residing abroad, such as the application for registration of this case, is complicated with relevant provisions, and it is natural for an attorney-at-law, who is a legal expert, to trust the application for registration of this case, along with necessary documents entrusted by both the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration, and where the person liable for registration is a purely foreign nationality Korean national national national national national national national national national. The certification of the government office in English, as well as the certification by the consul of the overseas embassy of the Republic of Korea, can be lawful or more trust. Thus, it is argued to the purport that there is no negligence on the part of the person liable for registration and the person responsible for registration, such as the attorney-at-law, etc., to apply for registration with the delegation of registration procedure by both the person liable for registration and the person responsible for registration, and thus, the registration officer in charge cannot be deemed mitigated from the duty of due care required for the formal examination of the application for registration of this case cannot be deemed as having been accepted.

D) Furthermore, Defendant Republic of Korea argues to the effect that there is no normative causal relationship between the violation or negligence of the law of the institution responsible for registration of Finine and the Plaintiff’s damage by taking account of the foregoing paragraph (3). Thus, the first purpose of the former Registration of Real Estate Act, which allows the institution to examine whether or not documents necessary for the application for registration have been submitted and whether or not documents submitted are formally authentic, and to dismiss the application for registration in a case where the applicant does not correct it within the given period for correction, is to prevent invalidation or defective registration by allowing the institution to verify that the applicant is a person responsible for registration and the applicant is due to a serious intention of the person responsible for registration. However, if the registration officer becomes invalid or defective due to its violation of the above provision, it would affect the third party’s rights and obligations which are related to the registration, as well as the person liable for registration, and thus, it would affect the protection of the third party, which is in charge of the registration of Real Estate Act, by accepting the registration of Real Estate Act’s own fault and its probability that it did not have been paid for the registration.

E) Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s property damage caused by such unlawful act by its registrar.

C. Determination as to the establishment of joint tort by the Defendants

In the establishment of the joint tort, if there is no common intention or common perception among the joint tortfeasor, and there is an objective common relation to each act objectively, and if damage was caused by the related joint act, it cannot be exempted from liability for damages. As seen earlier, since the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case was illegally cancelled due to the competition between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, the attorney-at-law, and the non-party 3, the office manager, and the agency responsible for the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case, the above act of the defendants is objectively related to each other, and it can be deemed that the aforementioned act of the defendants is objectively related to each other, and that there was a joint tort (hereinafter referred to as the "joint tort of this case"). Thus, the joint tort of this case is established.

3. Scope of damages.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff did not enter into the instant sales contract if he had known in advance the circumstances where the establishment registration of the instant mortgage was illegally cancelled. Therefore, the Defendants’ joint tort incurred damages equivalent to KRW 535 million of the instant sales amount due to the instant joint tort. Of total damages, the Defendants, as an explicit claim for part of the total damages, filed a claim against each of the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 150 million (the minimum amount confirmed by the judgment of the instant No. 1 out of the secured amount of the instant collateral security obligation) and statutory delay damages therefrom.

2) Meanwhile, in the first instance court, the Defendants filed a claim against each Plaintiff for payment of KRW 535 million (the amount equivalent to the purchase price in this case) and statutory delay damages thereof, but the judgment of the first instance court in this case became final and conclusive against the Plaintiff on the ground that it cannot be deemed that property damage was actually caused to the Plaintiff. As such, the first instance court clearly stated that partial claim was a claim was made, and (10) the principle of prohibition of re-instigation of a lawsuit under Article 267(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court’s effort which is the parties to the judgment is dancing and that the final and conclusive judgment is appropriate by the parties to the lawsuit. Thus, even if the final and conclusive judgment was withdrawn after the final judgment on the merits, it is reasonable to view that the lawsuit can be filed again if there is a justifiable reason to do not go against such purport, and that the remaining part of the lawsuit cannot be seen as being subject to prohibition of res judicata or withdrawal of a lawsuit after the final and conclusive judgment of the court of fact-finding (the remaining part of the lawsuit is not applicable until the date of the lawsuit).

B. Determination

1) A claim for damages arising from a tort is established at the time of actual damage, and whether actual damage has occurred shall be determined objectively and reasonably in light of social norms. In addition, in order to have a property damage arising from a tort, there must be differences between the disadvantage of property arising from an illegal harmful act, i.e., the property condition that would have existed without the illegal act and the current property status that became the illegal act. Meanwhile, in cases where a registration is cancelled without a cause because the requirement of validity of a real right is not the requirement for existence of a registration, the validity of the real right is not affected if the registration is revoked without cause. A registered titleholder cancelled even before the recovery registration is completed is presumed to be a legitimate right holder, and the registration cancelled by the procedure for recovery registration can be recovered (Article 75 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act). Thus, even if the registration of creation of a collateral security was cancelled without cause due to a tort, the registered titleholder of a collateral security cannot be said to have immediately suffered loss (Article 16).

2) In light of such legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and evidence, namely, ① the registration of recovery of mortgage of five households among each apartment houses of this case was completed without any reason for tort pursuant to the judgment of the court below, and as such, Nonparty 1 is presumed to be a legitimate collective security right holder with regard to all multi-household houses of this case (Article 75 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act), regardless of whether the registration of recovery was completed, the entire multi-household house of this case can be deemed to have been established over the period before and after the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership. ② Unless otherwise agreed upon under the main sentence of Article 588 of the Civil Act, the purchaser cannot refuse to pay the amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount under the registration of the instant multi-household house of this case until the date of registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case was completed, and thus, it cannot be seen that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff would be no legal obligation to recover the purchase price of this case until the date of registration of establishment of mortgage of this case was completed.

3) However, among the secured debt amount of the instant right to collateral security, the amount confirmed by the judgment of the instant case out of the secured debt amount exceeds KRW 150 million and the statutory delay damages thereof, as well as the amount exceeding KRW 150 million. Therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiff actually suffered property damage equivalent to at least KRW 150 million due to the Defendants’ joint tort.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 150 million per annum under the Civil Act from July 21, 2006, which is the joint tort day (the day when the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to each multi-household house of this case according to the sales contract of this case) of this case, as they sought by the Plaintiff as a property damages arising from the joint tort of this case to the Plaintiff as part of the claim, until January 24, 2013, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute over the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, until January 24, 2013.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims against the defendants of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as without merit. Since part of the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted, and it is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List: omitted

[Attachment 2] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Sang-sung (Presiding Justice)

1) The term "overseas Koreans" in this Act means persons who fall under any of the following subparagraphs: 1. A national of the Republic of Korea who has acquired a permanent residence of a foreign country or is residing in a foreign country for the purpose of permanent residence (hereinafter referred to as "Korean national residing abroad"); 2. A person who has held the nationality of the Republic of Korea (including Korean national who had emigrated abroad before the Government of the Republic of Korea was established) or his/her lineal descendant and has acquired a foreign nationality (hereinafter referred to as "foreign nationality Korean"):

2) As acknowledged earlier, Nonparty 1 is not a Korean national residing abroad but a foreign nationality Korean. As to Nonparty 1, not a Korean national residing abroad but a Korean national residing abroad should be issued with the Korean report card of foreign nationality Korean (see Article 7(1) of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans).

3) Although the record is unclear, Defendant 2 seems to have received a disposition of non-prosecution.

Note 4) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4295 Decided June 14, 2007

Note 5) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da13048 Delivered on February 25, 2005, etc.

Note 6) Meanwhile, the purport that the above certification or authentication is required to obtain certification or authentication on the power of attorney, etc. of this case itself does not mean that a signature certificate should be obtained separately.

7) The power of attorney to be submitted when a person who acquired a foreign citizenship disposes of real estate owned in the Republic of Korea without entry into the Republic of Korea and subsequently files an application for registration pursuant thereto must be notarized by the government office of the Republic of Korea (the foreign government office) which proves that the signature recorded on the power of attorney was the principal, or authenticated by the government office of the Republic of Korea (the foreign government office). Thus, the verification confirmed by the consul of the Embassy of the Republic of Sweden cannot be substituted by itself (the real estate registration of January 23, 2006 and the questioning-169 Inquiry). This is because the foreign embassy or consul of the Republic of Korea has no administrative jurisdiction over a foreigner or a foreign national Korean national national, and such verification cannot be conducted without the legal verification. This is the same even in a case where the Korean embassy or consul of the Republic of Korea loses the nationality of the Republic of Korea by acquiring a foreign nationality, but no expulsion from the loss of the nationality of the Republic of Korea due to the loss of the nationality on

Note 8) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2786 Decided November 15, 2007

Note 9) Supreme Court Decision 97Da18448 Decided November 28, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47014, 47021, 47038 Decided January 26, 2006, etc.

Note 10) In quantity, reduction of the amount of claims based on the same claim is interpreted as partial withdrawal of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9460, Sept. 14, 1993).

Note 11) Supreme Court Decision 88Meu18023 Decided October 10, 1989 and Supreme Court Decision 95Da4859, 48605 Decided March 13, 1998, etc.

Note 12) Supreme Court Decision 93Da43170 Delivered on January 14, 1994

Note 13) Supreme Court Decision 92Da29948 delivered on November 27, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 97Da4760 delivered on August 25, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da53038 delivered on April 8, 2003, etc.

Note 14) See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da33070 delivered on June 23, 1992, etc.

See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da59678 delivered on October 22, 2002, etc.

See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da68408 Decided February 11, 2010

17) Where there is a person who asserts a right over the subject matter of sale under Article 588 (Right of Claimant and Right of Refusal of Payment), and if there is a concern that the buyer might lose all or part of the right bought, the buyer may refuse payment of the purchase price to the extent of such danger: Provided, That this shall not apply when the seller furnishes reasonable security.

Note 18) Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1029 Decided September 27, 198, etc.

Note 19) Supreme Court Decision 97Da28568 delivered on April 24, 1998 and Supreme Court Decision 97Da4760 delivered on August 25, 1998, etc.

(20) In a case where a registrar omitted the transfer of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the registration of the seizure while compiling a new registry in the course of replotting, and the purchaser of real estate paid the purchase price in full, and thereafter the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the registration of the seizure was transferred, the case holding that the registration officer paid the purchaser actual loss on account of the fact that he/she believed the entry in the registry illegally made by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties and is not legally or contractually liable (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76580 Decided March 12, 2009)

21) If the seller fails to cancel the right to collateral security on the subject matter of sale, the buyer may refuse the payment of the purchase price to the extent of the risk. As a result, even if the buyer received delivery of the subject matter of sale pursuant to the proviso of Article 587 of the Civil Act, the buyer does not have the obligation to pay interest on the purchase price after the delivery date. In such a case, the purchase price which the buyer could refuse payment is not an amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security, but is not an amount equivalent to either a certain case or a case where the buyer knows of the subject matter of collateral security, and the sale price which the buyer may refuse payment is limited to the confirmed debt amount (Supreme Court Decision 96Da6554 delivered on May 10, 19

22) If the obligor’s assertion was accepted in the first instance trial by disputing the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, even if the assertion was rejected in the appellate trial, the assertion can be deemed to have a reasonable ground. In such a case, the interest rate for delay damages as prescribed in Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings cannot be applied until the appellate trial is sentenced pursuant to Article 3(2) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21696, Jul. 8,