(a) Where a bank loans money from a person who assumes the owner of a security by reliance on a forged certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration copy, etc. which was caused by the intention or negligence of the employees of the Dong office, whether the bank’s negligence in recognizing the employer’s liability should be considered (affirmative);

(b) The amount of damage suffered by the creditor due to the failure of the right to collateral security.

(a) If a bank loans money without taking such measures as directly confirming the residence relationship of the owner of the security in accordance with the prescribed loan regulations and with the belief and negligence only of the documents such as a certificate of seal impression, resident registration certificate, etc. forged due to negligence and the formal owner verification, such negligence must be taken into account when recognizing the employer’s responsibility.

B. The damages suffered by the obligee due to the non-existence of the right to collateral security, if the right to collateral security was effectively established, would have been lost even if the right to collateral security was performed, and thus, the amount of the actual claim within the scope of the market price at the time when the right to collateral security was anticipated to be performed, shall be the amount of damages.

Articles 393, 396, and 763 of the Civil Act

(A)Korea-Japan Bank;

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (87 Gohap3944) in the first instance trial

1. Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 234,138,688 and KRW 160,000 as to KRW 160,00,00,000, the annual interest rate of KRW 5% from October 20, 1986 to October 11, 1988, and the annual interest rate of KRW 25% from October 28, 1986 to October 11, 198, and the annual interest rate of KRW 25% from October 12, 198 to the full payment rate, shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be ten minutes per each of the first and second instances, and the eight minutes shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

4. The prize money as referred to in paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of 292,673,361 won and 200,000,000 won from October 20, 1986 to the service date of a copy of a complaint from October 28, 1986 to the service date of a copy of a complaint, 5% per annum from October 28, 1986 to the service date of a copy of a complaint, and 25% per annum from the day after the delivery date of a copy of a complaint to the full payment date.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant (the plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial above).

The judgment below is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증의 1(판결),2(확정증명원), 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 16(각 등기부등본), 갑 제9호증, 갑 제12호증의 6(각 인감증명), 갑 제13호증의 5(주민등록발급대장), 6(인감증명발급대장), 10, 12(각 보증서), 30(주민등록표 수령부), 31(전입신고확인서), 58(주민등록증분실신고서철), 59(주민등록증 분실신고서), 60(서약서), 61(주민등록분실신고 접수처리대장), 8, 28, 33, 56, 66, 77, 79, 85(각 진술조서), 57, 62(각 피의자신문조서), 갑 제15, 16호증(각 증인신문조서), 갑 제21호증(품의서), 을 제1호증, 을 제2호증의 1, 2(각 주민등록표등본), 증인 박재진의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제10호증(한정근 저당권설정계약서), 갑 제11호증(지상권설정계약서), 갑 제12호증의 3(지급보증약정서), 4(한정근 연대보증서), 7(수출어음대출금원장), 갑 제13호증의 23(차입신청서)의 각 기재와 위 증인의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 1986.3.27.부터 흑석3동사무소에서 전기, 수도 검침원으로 근무하던 소외 1은 소외 2와 공모하여, 소외 2는 실제로는 서울 강서구 화곡동 816의29에 살고 있는 소외 3이 서울 영등포구 신길동 157의28에서 서울 마포구 대흥동 22의93으로 전입하는 것처럼 위 화곡동장 명의의 개인별주민등록표를 위조하여 1986.6.29. 서울중앙우체국에서 등기우편으로 대흥동사무소로 발송하여 접수케하고, 소외 1이 위 대흥동 22의93 관할통장인 소외 4로부터 소외 3에 관한 허위의 전입확인을 받아 대흥동사무소 전출입 담당공무원인 소외 5에게 제출하여 위 각 허위문서에 기하여 소외 3의 세대별주민등록표를 작성하여 위 동사무소에 비치하게 한 사실, 1986.6.30.경 소외 1은 위 대흥동사무소에서 주민등록에 관한 사무를 담당하고 있던 직원인 소외 6에게 소외 3이 주민등록증을 분실하였다고 하면서 날짜를 소급하여 분실신고한 것으로 처리하여 법정처리기간보다 빨리 주민등록증을 재발급받을 수 있도록 해 달라고 부탁하여 소외 6은 분실신고일자를 1986.6.17.로 소급하여 분실신고서를 작성하여 1986.7.7. 소외 3을 사칭하는 소외 성명미상자의 사진이 붙은 소외 3 명의의 주민등록증을 작성하여 발급한 사실, 소외 1은 1986.7.8. 대흥동사무소에서 위 허위문서에 기하여 작성된 소외 3 명의의 세대별 주민등록표를 빼내어 소외 2로 하여금 소외 3의 가족들의 인적사항을 추가하여 기재케 한 후 1986.7.10. 이를 다시 대흥동사무소에 가져다 두면서 위 대흥동사무소에서 자기 마음대로 동장직인 등을 사용하여 소외 3 명의의 주민등록등본을 작성하여 소외 2에게 교부한 사실, 같은 날 위 성명미상자는 담당직원에게 위와 같이 발급받은 주민등록증을 제시하고 위와 같이 위조되어 비치된 개인별주민등록표에 날인된 인감도장을 제출하여 소외 3 명의의 인감증명3통을 발급받은 사실, 1986.7.10. 위 성명미상자는 자신의 사진을 붙여 위조한 소외 3 명의의 주민등록증을 제시하고 마치 자신이 소외 3인 것처럼 사칭하여 소외 7주식회사와 소외 3 소유의 위 부동산을 담보로 제공하고 원고은행으로부터 대출을 받되 위 부동산 감정가액의 50퍼센트를 자신이 사용하기로 약정하고, 1986.7.23. 원고은행에 가서 위와 같이 발급받은 허위의 주민등록증, 주민등록등본, 인감증명서 등을 제출하여 원고는 이에 의하여 위 성명미상자를 진정한 소유자로 믿고 위 부동산에 관하여 근저당권설정계약 및 지상권설정계약을 체결하고, 같은 날 위 부동산에 관하여 채권최고액 금 450,000,000원, 채무자 소외 7주식회사, 근저당권자 원고은행으로 된 근저당권설정등기 및 지상권설정등기를 마친 사실, 원고는 위와 같이 담보를 제공받은 다음 소외 7주식회사에게 1986.7.26. 금 200,000,000원을 1986.7.31. 금 100,000,000원을 각 연체이율은 연 1할 9푼으로 정하여 대출하였는데 위 대출금 중 금 200,000,000원에 대하여는 원금 전액 및 1986.10.20.부터의 지연손해금을, 나머지 대출금 100,000,000원에 대하여는 원금 중 92,673,361원 및 1986.10.28.부터의 지연손해금을 각 변제받지 못하고 있는 사실, 그런데 위 담보로 제공된 부동산의 실제 소유자인 소외 3은 위와 같이 위조된 서류에 의하여 근저당권설정등기등이 경료된 사실을 발견하고 1986.9.30. 원고를 상대로 서울민사지방법원에 위 각 등기가 원인결여의 무효인 등기임을 이유로 그 말소등기절차이행청구의 소송을 제기하여 승소판결을 받았고 위 판결이 그 무렵 확정됨에 따라 위 각 등기가 말소되기에 이른 사실, 위와 같이 원인무효의 근저당권설정등기등이 이루어지게 된 것은, 거주지 이동으로 인한 주민등록표의 이송시에는 구거주지의 시, 읍, 면, 동장이 일정한 서식에 의한 봉투에 주민등록표를 넣어 봉함한 후

In order to prevent accidents caused by forgery of resident registration cards, etc. at the new domicile, the non-party 1 was sent by registered mail at the designated post office or a nearby post office, and the seal of the head of the Dong in the Dong office and the official seal of the head of the Dong in the sent by the designated post office as above should be checked, but the non-party 5, who is a public official in charge of prior entry and exit of the designated post office, received and kept the above certificate without negligence. Accordingly, the certificate of seal impression was issued, and the above resident registration card was arbitrarily sent to the above public office, and the non-party 1 could not prepare a certified copy of the resident registration card at his own discretion in order to prevent the loss of the resident registration card, and the non-party 1 could not be used to reissue the resident registration certificate after the expiration of 14 days from the date of receiving the order to re-issue the resident registration certificate, and thus, the non-party 7 corporation's registration certificate could not be used to recover the above new registration certificate by falsely using the above non-party 6's resident registration certificate.

According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages caused to the plaintiff by negligence in the performance of his duties, such as the public official in charge of prior access to the office of the defendant Hasan-dong and the public official in charge of issuing resident registration certificates, etc.

The defendant asserts that even if the plaintiff lost the right to collateral security on the real estate of this case, the plaintiff's claim for loans against the non-party 7 corporation exists, and can take measures to recover claims against the above company by demanding other collateral, so it cannot be said that the defendant suffered damage immediately due to the loss of the right to collateral security. However, although the defendant's liability for tort by the public officials of the defendant Hasan and the liability under the above company's loan contract are aimed at compensating for the same debt (damage), the two are a kind of non-joint and several relationship with each other who bears the full responsibility. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the possibility of the repayment of the above company's contractual obligation. However, if the above company paid the contractual obligation, the plaintiff's damage claim is extinguished

In light of the above facts, if the Plaintiff had to verify whether he was the owner of the above real estate or not, the Defendant was negligent in signing and sealing the above 7th anniversary of the fact that the 10th owner of the above real estate was the owner of the above 7th ownership mortgage, and thus, the 10th owner of the above 7th owner's real estate was not the owner of the above 9th real estate, and the 3th owner was not the owner of the above 9th real estate at the time of signing and signing the 10th real estate mortgage agreement, and the 10th owner's real estate was not the owner of the above 9th real estate at the time of signing and signing the 7th real estate mortgage agreement, and thus, the 3th owner was not the owner of the above 9th real estate at the time of signing and sealing the 10th real estate and the 9th real estate was the owner of the above 9th real estate at the time of signing the 10th real estate mortgage agreement, and thus, the 17th real estate owner's signature.

Furthermore, the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the non-existence of the right to collateral security as stated in this case are effective. Thus, the amount of actual claims within the limit of the market price is the amount of damages. As seen earlier, the non-party 7 corporation did not pay damages for delay from October 20, 1986 or October 28, 1986. Thus, the court below's determination that the above damages for delay exceeded 316,794,00 won and the maximum debt amount of the above right to collateral security was 40,000 won and 80,000 won, and the damages for delay were 180,000 won and 208,000 won and 360% of the total debt amount of the plaintiff's damages for the above company were 160,000 won and 186,000 won and 360% of the total debt amount of the plaintiff's damages for damages. Thus, the court below's determination that the damages for the plaintiff's above damages were 26360,0,016.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)