Defendant Daegu Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City shall pay to the Plaintiff 20,020,000 won with an annual interest of 5% from January 12, 1982 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1, 2, and 3 is dismissed.

The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Daegu Metropolitan City shall be borne by the Defendant through the first and second instances, and the costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, 2 and 3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The above order to pay the money may be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20,020,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from January 12, 1982 to the date of full payment.

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

According to the above facts, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage made in the name of the plaintiff is invalid. Since the plaintiff is unable to acquire the security right, the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to 20,020,000 won of the above loan. Thus, the defendant Daegu Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City are responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the above losses caused by the above illegal acts related to the execution of duties by the non-party 1 who is a public official belonging to it.

The legal representative of the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City after the occurrence of the accident in this case and the remaining Defendants, the employees of the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City, were to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of damage compensation, but the plaintiff did not accept it. Thus, according to the plaintiff's negligence, the defendant 1, 2, 3 and the non-party 5's testimony, according to the non-party 2's testimony of the defendant 1, 2, 3 and the non-party 5, respectively, received from the above defendants 3,000,000 won from the above defendants and the non-party 5, and presented a proposal for the withdrawal of the remaining principal and interest, but the agreement was not reached. However, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Thus, the above defense of the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City and the non-party 5 is groundless.

As to Defendant 1, 2, and 3, the above Defendants asserted that they jointly caused damages to the Plaintiff as seen above by forging the above certified copy of the resident registration and the certificate of the personal seal impression in collusion with Nonparty 4, and delivering it to Nonparty 4, and thus, they are liable for compensating for damages to the Plaintiff. However, with the Plaintiff’s former certificate, it is insufficient to recognize that the above Defendants conspired with Nonparty 4 and forged the above documents. The above documents were identical to the above recognition that Nonparty 1 conspired with Nonparty 4. Therefore, the above Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

Even if Defendant 1, 2, and 3 conspired and did not forge the above documents, the above Defendants neglected supervision over Nonparty 1 as a superior of Nonparty 1, and neglected to keep and manage the official seal of the head of Dong and the private person of Defendant 2, who is the public official in charge of issuing the certificate, and thus, Nonparty 1, who is not the employee in charge, should be liable for damages arising from the above tort because he stolen it and forged Nonparty 5’s certified copy of the resident registration and the certificate of the personal seal impression. Thus, the circumstances that the head of Dong office neglected the custody and management of the head of Dong, etc. in the Dong office, which caused others to forge the certified copy of the resident registration and the certificate of personal seal impression and caused damage to the mortgagee by using it, can not be deemed as having been generally foreseeable. Thus, in this case where the above Defendants knew or could have known of such special circumstances, even if the above Defendants neglected to keep and manage the same, there is no reasonable causal relation between the negligence in performing their duties and the losses suffered by the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 192Da13198, Dec. 19, 19, 19, 19898).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City is justified, and the remaining claims against the defendants are without merit. Accordingly, the part of the original judgment against the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is with merit. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is justified. Since the part of the original judgment against the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City is without merit, the part of the original judgment against the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City is revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal against the other defendants is dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89, 93, 95, 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the provisional execution order.

Judges Kim Hun-Un (Presiding Judge)