Jeju Livestock Industry Cooperatives (Law Firm Hanra, Attorneys Go Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Lee Jong-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 11, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 20% interest per annum from the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The land owned by the deceased non-party 1 (the name and address omitted, and parcel number 2 omitted) was the land owned by the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased on September 2, 1958, and the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2.

B. However, in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 7500, Feb. 27, 1978; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), Nonparty 3 received a letter of guarantee from Defendant 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “Defendant guarantor”) stating that “the non-party 3 actually owns the land of this case by inheritance from the non-party 1, who is the father of September 9, 1981, jointly and severally guaranteed that the non-party 3 actually owns the land of this case.” On June 28, 2006, the non-party 3 received a letter of guarantee (hereinafter “the letter of guarantee of this case”) from the head of Namju-Gun, who was the father of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, who was in force at the time of April 5, 2006, it is confirmed that the non-party 3 actually owns the land of this case by inheritance from the non-party 4, who is not related to the land of this case.

C. On August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement of KRW 30,000,000 with Nonparty 3, and completed the registration of the establishment of neighboring mortgage and the superficies creation with the maximum debt amount of KRW 39,000 with respect to the land in this case as security for the above loan claim, each of which was completed with respect to the land in this case by Nonparty 3, the mortgagee, the plaintiff, the maximum debt amount of KRW 39,000,000, and the plaintiff and the person holding superficies with superficies creation with the duration of KRW 30,000. On August 17, 2006.

D. After that, Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit with the court claiming that Nonparty 3 completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land by using a false guarantee, and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Plaintiff, and that Nonparty 2 sought the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer of Nonparty 3 as to the instant land and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff. On November 6, 2007, the court accepted Nonparty 2’s above assertion and sentenced Nonparty 3 to the effect that Nonparty 3 fulfilled the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer and the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer of neighboring land and the registration of the cancellation of superficies establishment of the Plaintiff. The judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

The Plaintiff, as the guarantor under the Act on Special Measures, knew or could have known that Nonparty 3 was not a legitimate owner of the instant land, the Defendant’s guarantor, who was the guarantor, was to issue the instant guarantee to Nonparty 3, and the Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province did not know that Nonparty 3 was not a true owner of the instant land due to insufficient on-site investigation by the public officials under its jurisdiction, and issued the instant confirmation to Nonparty 3. Thus, based on the instant guarantee certificate and the confirmation document, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were liable for damages to the Plaintiff who lost the security interest, who was believed to believe that the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 3 was true, and on the other hand, lent KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff who lost the security interest.

In light of the above facts, it is difficult for Defendant 3 to recognize that Nonparty 1’s original domicile was the owner of the instant land and that Nonparty 1’s original domicile was the owner of the instant land, and that Nonparty 3 was the owner of the instant land was the owner of the instant land, and that it was difficult to recognize that Nonparty 1 was the owner of the instant land and that Nonparty 4’s original domicile was the owner of the instant land was not the owner of the instant land, based on the evidence Nos. 5 and Nos. 1-2, and that the original domicile of Nonparty 3 was somewhat remote from the location of the instant land, and that it was different from that of the owner of the instant land. However, it is difficult to recognize that Nonparty 1’s original domicile was the owner of the instant land, because Nonparty 7’s new domicile was not the owner of the instant land, or that Nonparty 4’s new domicile was the owner of the instant land was the owner of Nonparty 1’s new domicile. However, it is difficult to recognize that Nonparty 1 was the owner of the instant land.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Upper-gu