Forgery of a certificate of seal imprint due to neglect in custody and management by the verified person of the public official in charge of issuing the Myeon seal, and the State's liability for damages.

Even if the Nonparty, who is cresh of the official seal of the Myeon and the official seal of the public official in charge of the issuance of the certificate of the Myeon, forged the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by others and caused the Plaintiff to incur losses by using it, there is a proximate causal relation between the negligence in the official duties of the public official in charge who neglected the custody and management of the Myeon, and the loss incurred by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 2 of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act

Re-marketing

Korea

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na31 delivered on March 26, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1, who had a title 1,00 won, was negligent in entering the public service center of the first Myeon office twice the next day in collusion with the non-party 2 on February 10, 1977 and that the non-party 1, who had a title 1, had a relation to the non-party 1, had a personal seal impression on the part of the former Don-gun-gun-gun, and had a public official seal impression affixed to enter the public official office of the first Myeon office twice the next day, and used it to forge the two copies of the personal seal impression of the non-party 1, who is the owner of the land, and used it as if he was delegated by the non-party 1, who was the husband of the non-party 1, and obtained a certificate of personal seal impression affixed to the plaintiff on the 14th day of the same month and received a certificate of personal seal impression from the plaintiff, and then, the non-party 1, who had the public official seal affixed to the above judgment.

However, it is necessary for the public official in charge of the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression to use the official seal on the Myeon, and when the public official in charge of the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression applies for the issuance of a contract and real estate. Thus, if the public official in charge of the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression applies for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of causing damage to the mortgagee by forging the certificate of personal seal impression by using it, and further, when the public official in charge of the keeping and managing the certificate of personal seal impression was negligent, it cannot be said that the above damage would normally occur if the public official in charge of the Myeon office neglects the custody and management of the Myeon office. However, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be said that the public official in charge of the above 1 and 2 knew or did not have any special circumstance that the 7th official in charge of the above Myeon office knew or could not have any special circumstance that the 1st public official in charge of the above Myeon office did not know or manage it.

Therefore, the court below's determination that the public official who keeps and manages the above special circumstances without any deliberation or determination as to whether the public official who has kept and manages the dismissed workers knew or could have known at the time of the instant case is in a considerable relation between the negligence in the course of performing his duties who neglected to keep and manage them during working hours and the loss suffered by the plaintiff is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to causation in tort, which led to the misapprehension of legal principles as to causation in tort, and thereby, the court below's failure to exhaust all necessary deliberation or improper reasons are deemed to be in violation of justice and equity. Therefore, the argument on this point

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)