1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the Plaintiff's "Plaintiff" at No. 3, No. 17-18 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "Haak-ro," and the Plaintiff's "No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance" are as follows: : 6) The Plaintiff's public official in charge upon receipt of the application for the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint shall compare and examine all materials available to the administrative agency including resident registration certificates when issuing the certificate of seal imprint; 6) the Plaintiff must issue a certificate of seal imprint only when the applicant is aware that the applicant is the same as the holder of the certificate of seal imprint after the introduction of the electronic fingerprint form. However, the above Certification Act and provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that the applicant's certificate of seal imprint shall be replaced with the applicant's electronic data and electronic means only when it is difficult to verify the applicant's identity by the resident registration certificate, etc., and thus, the applicant's additional data should not be compared to the applicant's resident registration certificate of the same type.

2. The conclusion is as to the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance.