(a) Whether a public official performing duties to prevent fraudulent acts due to a certificate of seal imprint issued exists;

(b) The degree and method of identification of the identity when accepting the personal registration of the seal imprint;

A. A certificate of seal imprint is a material confirming the identity of a trader and the identity of a trader as well as that of a trader’s intent, and has extremely important functions in ordinary transactions. As such, a public official handling affairs of a certificate of seal imprint has a duty to prevent misconduct due to a certificate of seal imprint issued in expectation that it is used on a day related to rights and obligations with others.

B. If a person asserts that his/her personal seal imprint has already been registered, a public official of the competent authority for the certification of his/her personal seal imprint who has already filed his/her personal seal imprint shall, when verifying whether his/her personal seal imprint is his/her original registrant, compare his/her personal information and all the data available to him/her in his/her resident registration certificate and the certification agency, and then shall receive and accept his/her personal registration certificate only if it is found that his/her personal information is his/her original registrant. Whether his/her personal information is externally forged or altered or his/her personal information stated is consistent with that on his/her resident registration certificate, as well as whether his/her personal information on his/her resident registration certificate and the personal information recorded on his/her resident registration card kept at the competent certification agency in the presence of his/her personal registrant (in particular, comparing his/her face and his/her resident registration certificate, photograph of his/her personal resident registration card, etc.).

(a)Article 2 of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 14 of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, Articles 7 and 16(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act,

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da8152 Decided March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1242) (Gong1991, 1242) 91Da8166 Decided June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 221) 93Da50185 Decided January 11, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 699)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na14966 delivered on September 14, 1994

All appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the costs of appeal against the defendant.

(1) We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

A certificate of seal imprint is a material that verifies the identity of a trader and confirming that a transactional act is caused by the will of an actor and has extremely important functions in ordinary transactions. As such, a public official handling affairs of a certificate of seal imprint is obligated to perform his/her duties to prevent unjust acts arising from the certificate of seal imprint issued in expectation that it is used on days related to other persons’ rights and obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da50185, Jan. 11, 1994). In particular, in a case where a person claiming a previous certificate of seal imprint files his/her personal registration, a public official who has reported his/her personal seal imprint shall compare the personal matters stated by the person who has reported his/her personal seal imprint with all available materials held by the person who has reported his/her personal seal imprint with the resident registration certificate and the certification agency, and shall receive and accept such personal registration only if the person is aware that he/she is himself/herself.

Meanwhile, according to the Resident Registration Act, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall prepare and keep individual resident registration cards to enter matters concerning resident registration (Article 7(1) of the Act). The individual resident registration cards are required to keep and maintain comprehensive records about the individual (Article 7(2) of the Act). According to the Enforcement Decree delegated by the Resident Registration Act, the resident registration cards form and method of recording the resident registration cards are required to be attached to the individual resident registration cards (Article 7(3) of the Act, Article 4(1), and Article 2-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act). As a public official of the certification agency upon receipt of the personal registration cards, the personal information presented by the reporting person is forged or altered, or the personal information stated by the reporting person is consistent with the personal information on the resident registration cards in front of the reporting person, and the personal information recorded on the individual resident registration cards should be verified directly by Article 7(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

In the previous theory, the personal resident registration card and the seal imprint register are integrated, managed in front and rear as a single paper, and the seal imprint register is enforced pursuant to the Certification of Seal Imprint Act amended by Act No. 4315, Jan. 14, 191 and the Certification of Seal Imprint Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 13351, Apr. 16, 1991; the seal imprint register was prepared, kept, and managed in a separate form from the personal resident registration card; and Article 7-2 of the amended Certification of Seal Imprint Act provides that the personal resident registration card and the seal imprint register may submit a photograph to protect the personal resident registration card and request the submission of a seal imprint register to be attached to the seal imprint register. However

The court below's reasoning is somewhat insufficient, but the public official who has been in charge of the certificate of seal imprint of the Dong office under the defendant's control failed to perform his duty to verify whether the person who has reported his personal seal imprint of this case is the original person who has reported his personal seal imprint of this case. Thus, the defendant is held liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to a tort under the State Compensation Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the rules of evidence as pointed out

(2) We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's negligence is recognized as well as the plaintiff's negligence is 20% in determining the scope of the defendant's damages, which held that the plaintiff's negligence ratio is 20% in determining the scope of the defendant's damages is acceptable, and it does not seem to be in violation of justice and equity as the above comparative negligence ratio recognized by the court below is significantly high. The precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

(3) Therefore, the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the incidental appeal costs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)