1. A certificate of seal imprint is a material to verify the identity of a trader and that the transaction with the identity of the trader is caused by the intent of the actor. Thus, a public official handling the certificate of seal imprint has a duty to prevent the occurrence of misconduct caused by the certificate of seal imprint issued in expectation that it is used on work related to rights and obligations with others. Therefore, if a person who entered into a contract with the name of the seal imprint suffers loss due to the above issued certificate of a false certificate of seal imprint, there is a proximate causal relation between the issuance of the certificate of seal imprint and the loss (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da8152, Mar. 22, 1991; 91Da5770, Jul. 9, 191; 93Da50185, Jan. 11, 1994, etc.).

Under the former Certification of Seal Imprint Act (amended by Act No. 6667 of Mar. 25, 2002) and the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17867 of Dec. 31, 2002), a certificate of seal imprint shall be verified by a resident registration certificate, etc. as to whether the applicant is the applicant or his/her agent, and shall be compared and verified by a comparison with the seal on the seal imprint on which the prior registration of the seal imprint is filed and shall be verified by a so-called direct certification method proving its identity. This legal doctrine does not change by omitting the procedure of comparing and verifying the seal imprint affixed on the application form and the seal imprint affixed on the seal imprint register so that the certification agency can conduct a certificate using an electronic information processing system in accordance with the amendment of the above Act and the Enforcement Decree.

This is because, under the so-called indirect certification method, the applicant must still be the person in principle (Article 7 (1) of the Act), when issuing a certificate of seal imprint, the applicant must be the person in question or his/her agent (Article 13 (1), (2) and the former part of Article 13 (4) of the Enforcement Decree), when it is difficult to verify his/her identity, the applicant shall refuse to issue a certificate of seal imprint (Article 15 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree), when it is difficult to obtain a certificate of seal imprint for sale of real estate, the purchaser's personal information shall be stated in the real estate purchaser column (Article 13 (3) of the Enforcement Decree), when issuing a certificate of seal imprint, etc. (the latter part of Article 13 (4) of the Enforcement Decree), and the procedure for issuing a certificate of seal imprint or any essential change different from the previous function shall not be deemed to have been changed.

2. 원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 피고 소속 구로 제4동사무소에서 인감증명서 발급업무를 담당하는 소외 1이 2004. 6. 16. 소외 2를 사칭하는 사람으로부터 소외 2의 인감증명서를 발급하여 달라는 신청을 받고(제1심법원의 무인감정결과에 의하면 소외 3이나 소외 2 본인이 신청을 하지 않은 것은 명백하나, 누구인지는 알 수 없다), 그가 제출하는 신분증으로 신원을 확인하고(주민등록증, 자동차운전면허증, 장애인등록증 또는 여권 등 신분증 중 어떤 신분증으로 신원을 확인하였는지는 명확하지 않다), 인감증명발급대장에 신청인의 무인을 날인받은 후 위 무인과 컴퓨터화면에 띄워진 소외 2의 지문을 육안으로 확인한 후 동일한 것으로 보고 소외 2 명의의 인감증명서를 발급하여 준 사실, 소외 3은 소외 2의 주민등록증( 소외 2 명의의 주민등록증에 소외 3 자신의 사진을 붙였다)과 인감도장을 위조한 다음, 2004. 6. 23. 원고를 찾아가 소외 2를 사칭하면서 원고의 대출담당 직원에게 위조한 소외 2의 주민등록증, 인감도장과 소외 1로부터 발급받은 위 인감증명서를 제출하면서 이 사건 부동산을 담보로 하는 대출신청을 한 사실, 당시 소외 3이 원고의 대출담당 직원에게 제시한 소외 2의 주민등록증은 진정한 주민등록증과는 달리 앞면에 ‘주민등록증’이라고 기재된 부분 중 ‘민’자가 ‘ㅁ’의 왼쪽 세로획 ‘ㅣ’와 아래 가로획 ‘ㅡ’이 맞닿는 형태로 되어 있고, 뒷면 주소변경란과 일자확인란 사이의 세로획이 제일 밑줄 가로획과 맞닿는 형태로 되어 있었으며, 그 뒷면 하단의 “※이 증을 습득하신 분은 우체통에 넣어주십시”까지의 글자체가 명조체로 이루어져 있었던 사실, 소외 3이 원고의 대출담당 직원에게 이 사건 부동산에 관한 등기필증을 분실하였다고 말하자, 원고의 대출담당 직원은 법무사인 원고 보조참가인에게 부동산등기법 제49조 제3항 소정의 확인서면의 작성을 의뢰하여 그 서면을 받고 동사무소에서 소외 2의 주민등록표를 열람하는 방법으로 주민등록 전입세대 및 임대차현황조사를 하여 임차인이 없음을 확인한 후 같은 달 24. 소외 3을 소외 2 본인으로 믿고 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 채권최고액 390,000,000원의 근저당권 설정등기를 마쳤으며, 같은 달 25. 소외 3에게 대출금 300,000,000원에서 인지대 등을 공제한 281,336,814원을 같은 날 주식회사 제일은행 구로공단지점에 미리 개설되어 있던 소외 2 명의의 예금계좌에 입금하는 방법으로 지급한 사실, 그러나 그 후 등기소로부터 이 사건 부동산에 관한 근저당권 설정등기의 등기필 통지서를 받은 소외 2가 2004. 7. 5. 원고에게 항의를 하며 이 사건 부동산에 관한 근저당권 설정등기의 말소를 요구하였고, 이에 원고는 소외 2 본인이 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 근저당권을 설정하고 대출을 받은 것이 아니라는 사실을 확인한 후 같은 달 23. 이 사건 부동산에 관한 근저당권 설정등기를 말소해 준 사실 등을 인정하였다.

Furthermore, while determining that Nonparty 1, who is a public official in charge of the affairs of the certification of seal imprint belonging to the defendant, was negligent in issuing Nonparty 2’s certificate to Nonparty 2, the court below held that: (a) under the method of indirect certification as to the certificate of seal imprint, the public official in charge of the affairs of the certification of seal imprints issued a certificate of seal imprints to the public official in charge of the affairs of the certification of seal imprints; and (b) the public official in charge of the affairs of the certification of seal imprints notarized the copy of the previous form of the certificate when issuing the certificate of seal imprints; and (c) at the stage of using the certificate of seal imprints, the user himself has made the certificate of seal imprints; (d) the identity and transaction of the trader are merely proved by the actor’s intent; and (e) the identity and transaction of the seal imprints submitted by the certificate of seal imprints are only verified by the trader’s identity and the identity of the applicant; and (e) whether the applicant’s request for loan was due to his intention or not should have been confirmed by the Plaintiff’s own responsibility.

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below as it is.

As seen earlier, under the so-called indirect certification method, if a public official in charge of handling the duties of a certificate of a seal imprint issues a false certificate of a seal imprint by neglecting his duty of care, and the person who entered into a contract with the name holder for the certificate of a false certificate of a seal imprint suffers loss therefrom, there is a proximate causal relationship between the issuance and issuance of the false certificate of a seal imprint and the damage therefrom. The court below determined that the non-party 1, who is the public official in charge of handling the duties of the defendant, was negligent in issuing the non-party 2's certificate of a false certificate of a seal imprint to the non-party 2, and that the plaintiff conducted a loan with the trust and good faith of the certificate of a seal imprint issued by the above non-party 1 and the losses

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages of this case by determining that there is no proximate causal link between the issuance of a false certificate of seal imprint and the losses suffered by the plaintiff, which held that the certificate of seal imprint under the so-called indirect certification method merely proves the identity of the seal imprint itself and that the identity of the trader and the transaction was caused by the intent of the actor. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the certificate of seal imprint, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)