The case holding that there is no proximate causal relationship between the victim's damage and the negligence of the public official in charge, in case where a new certificate of personal seal impression issued by a public official in charge is forged and used without identity; and the victim inflicted damage on the victim.

In a case where, rather than using another person's certificate issued as it is or by altering only a part of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by a public official's negligence, a person responsible for the issuance of a certificate of the personal seal impression has forged a completely different certificate of the personal seal impression from the original one without permission of the person responsible for the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression following the repeated electronic copying method, and caused damage to the victim by deception, the case holding that the local government is held liable for damages on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the fact that the public official in charge issued the certificate of the personal seal impression by mistake and the damage

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 2 of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Busan, General Law Office, Attorneys Jeong-sil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City (Attorney Jung-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 96Da35732 delivered on January 10, 1997

Supreme Court Order 97Da22461 Delivered on July 23, 1997

1. The part of the judgment below against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,00,000 won with 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case until the day of the decision of the court below, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4-3, 8-14, 5-5, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25 through 33, 35 through 39, and 47, and the testimony of non-party 3 of the original instance trial by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings, and the following facts can be acknowledged in light of the written evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-3, 4-4-3, 8-5, 5-1, 17, 20, 23, 25 through 33, 35 through 39, 47, and the testimony of non-party 3 of the original instance by Non-party 3 of the witness of the original instance by non-party 1-

A. A. On May 2, 1995, Nonparty 1 was aware of Nonparty 5, who was operating Nonparty 5, who was 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' of the 'the 'the 'the ' the ' of the 'the 'the ' the ' the '' of the ' the ' the ' of the ' the ' of the '' on the 16th Do-dong 118-16th Do-dong 2, Busan, the Do-dong 198, and planned to borrow money from other persons

B. On June 2, 1995, the above non-party 1 found the new-line 2 Dong-dong office located in Busan Young-gu 2 Dong-dong, Busan and reported that his personal seal impression was lost to the non-party 2 who is a public official belonging to the defendant working in the Dong office, while his personal seal impression was lost to the non-party 2 who is a public official belonging to the above Dong office.

C. Accordingly, the above non-party 2 demanded the above non-party 1, who is the above non-party 5, to present the above non-party 5's resident registration certificate for the purpose of issuing a personal seal imprint and a seal imprint, and if so, it was impossible to issue a seal imprint. However, the above non-party 1 was lost the resident registration certificate and requested the above non-party 1 to issue a seal imprint to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 at the same time.

D. The above non-party 1 forged a report on the loss of the resident registration certificate in the above non-party 5 on his own name and put it to the above non-party 2. However, the above non-party 2 confirmed the above non-party 5's photograph attached to the above non-party 5's resident registration card kept in the above Dong office and confirmed that the non-party 1 was the same as the above non-party 5, and issued two copies of the above non-party 5's personal seal impression to the non-party 5 at the end of the above non-party 1's personal seal impression which the above non-party 5 thought to be the same as the above non-party 5, and then the above non-party 1 found in the above Dong office around June 5, 1995 and was issued three copies of the personal seal impression in the above non-party 5's personal seal impression again.

E. After that, on June 7 of the same year, the above non-party 1 copied two copies of the above non-party 5's seal impression in the above non-party 5's name, one copy of the above non-party 1's seal impression in the name of the above non-party 5's seal impression, which was issued as above, and deleted as revised amount, with the seal stamp size of the head of Dong, the portion of the seal stamp, the seal number of the person in charge, the issuance number, and the date of issuance, etc., and then re-printed it with the modified amount. The seal stamp column and the seal seal number of the 2917, June 5, 95 with the above non-party 5's seal impression column, the above non-party 5's seal impression number and the seal seal number of the above non-party 1's above 4's above 5's seal impression were affixed to the above non-party 5's seal stamp, and the remaining 1's seal number and the seal number of the non-party 1's seal column 7.

F. In addition, the above non-party 1, who participated in the above documents that were forged as above in the P.M., was found to be ○○ Investment Finance for the plaintiff's management on the 13th floor located in Busan J.S. Busan J. 1, 199, and the non-party 3, who is his employee, presented a forged certificate of personal seal impression, real estate lease contract, payment guarantee, and borrowed a gold of KRW 16,00,000. The above non-party 3 knew that the above non-party 1 was about the above non-party 5 with the above documents, and received a loan certificate from the above non-party 1 that borrowed a gold of KRW 16,00,000,000 with interest rate of KRW 2% per month, and then lent the above loan amount of KRW 12,180,000 from the above loan to the non-party 1,000,0000,000 additional gold of KRW 10,000.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that since the above non-party 2 issued the certificate of personal seal impression by negligence in the performance of duties as mentioned above and the above non-party 1 caused damages to the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff's staff and deceiving the money by using it, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the negligence of the above non-party 2 who is a public official

Therefore, it is extremely important for the general public to verify the identity of the trader and to verify the transactional identity of the trader as well as the identity of the trader. Thus, the public official handling the affairs of the certificate of the certificate of the seal imprint has a duty to prevent unlawful acts arising from the certificate of the seal imprint issued in expectation that it was used on the day related to rights and duties with others. As such, if the above non-party 5's seal imprint was already reported in the situation where the above non-party 5's seal imprint was already lost, and the above non-party 1 was applied for the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal imprint upon reporting the loss of his personal seal imprint, the above non-party 2, who is a public official in charge of the above affairs, should have carefully compared the personal identification card attached to the above personal registration card kept in the above Dong office and the face of the above non-party 1's personal seal imprinted by the above non-party 1, and should have confirmed whether it coincide with the above non-party 1's personal identification card, and should have accepted the above non-party 1 and the above personal seal.

However, the above non-party 1 did not use a false certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the non-party 5 or a false certificate of the personal seal impression issued as it is, but did not use a false certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the non-party 1 as it is, it did not use a false certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the non-party 5, and used a new certificate of the personal seal impression issued without permission of the head of the Dong, who is the title holder, to forge it with the official seal of the non-party 1, and forged it at least two new certificates of the personal seal impression issued at the same time without permission, and used it as a means of deception, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff. If the facts are different, it is difficult to view that there is a natural and factual causal relationship between the above non-party 2 and the fact that the plaintiff suffered damage, even if the plaintiff's damage is found within the scope of proximate causal causal relationship that can be the ground for the liability for damages under the State Compensation Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, and the part against the defendant among the judgment below is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)