B. The meaning of the date when he became aware of the damage and the perpetrator under Article 766 of the Civil Code

(c) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the person who entered into a contract with the titleholder of a seal imprint with a false certificate of seal imprint issued by a public official had become aware of the unlawful act of the public official only when the lawsuit against the titleholder was instituted and lost

B. The date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator stipulated in Article 766 of the Civil Code refers to the actual and specific perception of the damages and the perpetrator, and the presumption or awareness of the damages are not sufficient.

(c) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the person who entered into a contract with the titleholder of a seal imprint with a false certificate of seal imprint issued by a public official had become aware of the unlawful act of the public official only when the lawsuit against the titleholder was instituted and lost

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below found that the non-party 1 entered into a contract with the plaintiff's cosmetic agent agreement, which caused damage to the non-party 2's obligation to be borne by the plaintiff due to the transaction of goods. Since the non-party 2 stolen his personal seal impression, his father, and applied for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression for the endorsement of promissory notes and the establishment of the non-party 2 in the name of the Eup office within the jurisdiction of the defendant 2, the non-party 3 was not the applicant himself, but the non-party 1 was not the applicant, and the non-party 2 was not the owner of the above office, but the non-party 3 was not the owner of the non-party 1's personal seal impression at the request of the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 was not the owner of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was not the owner of the non-party 2's personal seal impression 90,000 won. The court below determined that the non-party 1 issued the non-party 2's personal seal impression 97.

A certificate of seal imprint is a material to verify the identity of a trader as well as the identity of a trader and a transaction with the intent of an actor, and has an extremely important function in ordinary transactions. As such, a public official handling affairs of a certificate of seal imprint is obligated to perform his duties to prevent misconduct arising from the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint by predicting that it is used on a job related to rights and obligations of others. Therefore, if a person who entered into a contract with a name holder due to a false certificate of seal imprint issued suffers loss due to the occurrence of the loss, the above certificate of seal imprint is deemed to have a relation with the equivalent person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da322, Jan. 27, 1976). In this regard, the lower court’s judgment recognizing liability for damages by the Defendant is justifiable and there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the nature or effect of the certificate

2. According to Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, a claim for damages due to a tort shall be extinguished by prescription, unless it is exercised by the injured party or his legal representative for three years from the date on which the injured party or the perpetrator becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator. The date of awareness here means that the injured party or his legal representative knows the damages and the perpetrator practically and specifically, and the presumption or doubt of the damages is not sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da256 delivered on March 22, 197; Supreme Court Decision 76Da2008 delivered on June 7, 197; Supreme Court Decision 80Da2150 delivered on July 7, 1981).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 2 notified the plaintiff on December 25, 1984 (the original trial seems to be erroneous that it was 12.11) that the plaintiff did not have any endorsement of the establishment registration and promissory note of the establishment registration of the neighboring area of this case. The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have known of the non-party 3's unlawful issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 2 against the non-party 2, but the judgment against the plaintiff became final and conclusive and conclusive, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles as to the starting point of the statute of limitations.

In addition, the court below's finding that the plaintiff was not negligent with regard to the occurrence and expansion of the damage and rejected the defendant's assertion on offsetting the negligence is not justified and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)