The representative of the Gu

2. D;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

A. An employee A, who had worked for the Plaintiff’s room for the sale of female clothes, stolen the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, and presented the said resident registration certificate at the Dong office of Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Dong-gu (hereinafter “Defendant Gu”), and received 27 copies of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and 32 copies of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and 21 times without permission, over 15 times from March 23, 2006 to November 16, 2006.

B. Defendant D is a public official in charge of issuing a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. at the above B B Dong office, and first, it is doubtful that A was aware of his identity on the ground that his face differs from that of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate presented by A as the Plaintiff, but A was performing a sexual surgery, and it was easily believed that A did not have any other photograph on the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and issued a certified copy of his resident registration certificate and a certified copy of his resident registration number to A who did not have any other place. However, Defendant D and the Defendant, a local government to which the said Defendant belongs, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for property and mental damage inflicted on the Plaintiff by using a certificate of personal seal impression and a certified copy of resident registration certificate issued by A as above.

C. The amount of damages that the Defendants are liable for damages is ① 4,326,245 won between the cancellation and receipt of the insurance subscribed by the Plaintiff from the Heung National Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on March 16, 2007, ② 3,630,000 won from the New York Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on September 5, 2006; 11,602,000 won from the new life insurance Co., Ltd.; 13,50,000 won from the new life insurance Co., Ltd.; 4,90,00 won from the Rusba Co., Ltd.; 2,321,30 won from the Samsung Card Co., Ltd.; 2,491,000 won from Hyundai Card Co., Ltd.; 2,400 won from Hyundai Card Co., Ltd.; 300 won from 1,500 won from Mansan Life Insurance Co., Ltd.; and

2. Determination

A. From March 23, 2006 to November 16, 2006, A, who had been employed by the Plaintiff at the Seocho-dong Office of Busan, presented the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate at the above Dong-dong office and was issued 27 copies of the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, and 20 copies of the copy and abstract of the resident registration certificate. Defendant D, who had been in charge of issuing the certificate of personal seal impression, etc. at the above Dong office, pointed out the difference between the Plaintiff’s photograph and A’s face in comparison with the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, but he believed A to be the Plaintiff and issued the certificate of personal seal impression, etc. as above, there is no dispute between the parties.

B. Whether there was an error in failure to properly verify the identity

(1) Whether a public official violates his/her duty to verify whether an applicant for a civil petition is the person himself/herself or not, Article 25 of the Resident Registration Act provides that a local government shall confirm only a photograph on the resident registration certificate without attaching any other documentary evidence when it is necessary to receive a civil petition document or verify his/her identity. Thus, first of all, whether a request for presentation of a resident registration certificate has been made or not, in light of the photographs and descriptions on the resident registration certificate, etc. of the applicant for a civil petition present at the meeting, whether the difference between the descriptions on the resident registration certificate and those on the resident registration certificate

(2) Accordingly, considering the following facts: (a) Defendant D requested and compared A to present his resident registration certificate for identification; and (b) discovered the difference between pictures and real objects; and (c) requested A to provide reasonable explanation, Defendant D’s demand for documents necessary for identification and comparison with the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate. In addition, in full view of the results of the fact inquiry into Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu, the fact that A was taken around June 1999; (b) A was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s photograph attached to the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate was taken about one more of the Plaintiff; and (c) as well as the said fact, A was argued that both the Plaintiff and A were women, and both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were performing a sex operation, it is not recognized that there is a considerable difference between A’s appearance and the Plaintiff’s photograph, to the extent that anyone can easily recognize the difference.

(3) Furthermore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that A had stolen the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate or exercised the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and received a certificate of personal seal impression. Rather, in full view of the entries in Gap 17 and Eul 1-1 and Eul 2 and the purport of the entire arguments in witness testimony, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff obtain a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. using the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate. The Plaintiff was issued a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. more than the number permitted to be issued by the Plaintiff. A was subject to criminal punishment for unlawful exercise of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate even if the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate is not the Plaintiff himself/herself, and was not subject to criminal punishment in relation to the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate. Accordingly, according to this, the Plaintiff’s permission to use the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and has a considerable contribution to enabling a public official who should verify the Plaintiff’s identity

(4) In full view of the above facts, it is difficult to view Defendant D as a public official in charge of issuing a certificate of personal seal impression and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.

C. Whether the damage occurred

(1) Furthermore, although the Plaintiff alleged that A was responsible for damage by cancelling an insurance contract or lending money under the name of the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff did not delegate the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression to A, the Plaintiff’s illegal act and the victim due to Defendant D’s negligent act are the company or creditor that paid or lent the money for cancellation, etc., and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff did not bear any legal liability for cancellation or loan, and that there is no property damage, and that only mental damage occurs among those without property damage, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered damage as above. (2) In addition, even if the Plaintiff is liable for payment due to the actual or obligee’s apparent liability, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the Defendants for damage or liability for payment. In such a case, the Plaintiff can exercise the right to indemnity only for the Plaintiff’s joint exemption to the Defendants, a joint responsible manager, even if there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff jointly discharged the Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for reimbursement.

(3) From any perspective, it is difficult to accept the assertion that the Defendants incurred losses to the Plaintiff solely by issuing the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression to A.

3. Conclusion

For the above reasons, the claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit.