2013dada 48245 Compensation for damages

A

1. Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

2. Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

3. Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

4. Korea;

January 21, 2014

February 11, 2014

1. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Korea jointly and severally, KRW 10,000,000, and Defendant Gangnam-gu shall pay to the Plaintiff 2,000,000 as well as each of the above amounts at the rate of 5% per annum from August 8, 2013 to February 11, 2014, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 20% of the costs incurred between the Plaintiff, Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder by the Defendants, 30% of the costs incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant Gangnam-gu, and the remainder by the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Korea jointly and severally, KRW 18,00,000, and Defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall pay to the Plaintiff 3,000,000 and 20% interest per annum from August 8, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Request against the defendant Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yangcheon-gu, and Korea;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Personal information and personal information of the Plaintiff and his name

A) The Plaintiff is A, B, and C, the resident registration number is “C”, and the place of registration is “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul” (Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, because the document, etc. submitted in this case contains the address prior to the change to the road name address, the document, etc. submitted in this case is recorded as the former address before the change is made). The father is F (G.) and the father is “H”, Gangnam-gu I was born in Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and the place of registration on the resident registration is Seoul J apartment 17-403, and the place of registration on the resident registration is Seoul J apartment 16, 308 (name L, 16 Dong 308) from January 18, 191 to the present day.

B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, name (the same shall apply to the Plaintiff), date of birth, M whose name is the same as that of the Plaintiff (the same shall apply hereinafter), and date of birth (the name of whose name is Ma) is N(0) and this is the “P”, the place of birth is the “SP hospital in Hong Kong”, and the certification of birth is the “SP hospital in Hong Kong”, and the certificate of birth was sent on June 26, 1987 by the consuls of the Republic of Korea in Hong Kong, and the family register was prepared on the basis thereof, and the place of registration is the “Seoul Central-gu R”, and

2) Error entry in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and issuance of a passport by his name M

A) Defendant Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Jung-gu”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Jung-gu”) was requested to improve the resident registration number, etc. pursuant to the “Special Act on the Procedure for the Correction of Resident Registration Numbers and Entry in the Resident Registration Numbers, No. 670 of the Rules of the Supreme Court at the time of May 2005, the public official S belonging to the Seoul Family Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Jung-gu”) who managed the family registry (before the enforcement of the family registry system) by the head of the Gu or the head of the Gu against the head of the Gu, who is the disposition agency, although the administrative act at issue in this case was committed by the head of the Gu, or by the head of the Gu, but for convenience, the public official S issued a resident registration number to M who did not have the resident registration number and corrected and recorded the family registry.

At the time, the family register of Ma, the Dong name, was recorded as "Seoul Jung-gu R, and the place of birth: Hong Kong," and the resident registration number column was recorded as the official column, and the basic certificate (as it is a basic certificate based on the family relation registration system on February 2, 2005, it is not at the time of August 12, 2005) was written as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

On August 12, 2005, the correction entered as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B) At around September 5, 2010, Dong name entered the Republic of Korea on September 5, 2010, M's father name entered the Republic of Korea and the NN is N himself, and the basic domicile is T, children, U, V, W and Dong name M (which is corrected and recorded as the plaintiff's resident registration number) and depart from Hong Kong on September 7, 2010 and submitted an application for the reissuance of the Hong Kong's passport (resident registration number; hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Hong Kong Co., Ltd."), the name of Dong name entered in the Republic of Korea and submitted it as evidence, and the name of Dong name stated "MM 3, Hong Kong" in the application for the reissuance of the passport issued by Dong name as the plaintiff's resident registration number, the region (N. whether it was directly submitted or not) at the time of the issuance of the passport, the name of Dong name is recorded as 30, 30,000, 30,000, 3,00, 3,00.

The public official in charge of the above consular officials entered the plaintiff's resident registration number on September 17, 2010 in the passport of Ma whose name is the same based on the above data, and thus reissued the passport of the main passport on September 17, 201 (the name of Ma was issued for the first time on September 18, 191 by the Hong Kong consular official, and was reissued each residence passport on July 5, 196 and March 30, 2006, and as such, the previous passport was reissued with the passport on which the plaintiff's resident registration number is stated, and returned to the above consular official).

Using the above-issued passport, M, whose name is the same, entered the Republic of Korea on December 2, 2010, and departed from the Republic of Korea on December 7, 2010, and entered the Republic of Korea on February 6, 2012 and depart again on February 12, 2012.

3) Cancellation and recovery of the Plaintiff’s resident registration due to cancellation of locally obtained emigration

A) On October 25, 2010, the Hong Kong consular official issued a new passport to M, and notified the Minister of Foreign Affairs (at that time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) of this fact to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Defendant Republic of Korea. The Minister of Foreign Affairs believed the Plaintiff to locally reside in the Republic of Korea, and notified the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the fact that he requested the Minister of Security and Public Administration (at that time, the Ministry was the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, but the Ministry was the Ministry of Public Administration and Security) to take necessary measures, such as sending the list of

B) Accordingly, on October 26, 2010, the Minister of the Safety and Administration of the Republic of Korea requested the head of the Dong to adjust resident registration cards pursuant to Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act while providing that he/she shall notify the head of the Gu pursuant to Article 26(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act, but actually notifies the head of the Dong of the list of local migrants in September 2010.

The list notified at the time is "Yancheon-gu", "Ministry of Public Administration and Security", "2010-10-26", and the title "Yancheon-gu" are written as "Zak-gu," and the receiver is written as "Zak-gu," and is written as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

On the other hand, around January 2013, the documents consisting of Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, "Ministry of Public Administration and Security", "2010-10-26, "2 Dong of the recipient", and "Notice of List of Local Residents while abroad," which the plaintiff requested information disclosure to Jung-gu, the defendant Jung-gu, and "A" are the same documents, and Eul evidence No. 3 does not include "the last address at the time of departure" as follows, unlike Eul evidence No. 1.

A person shall be appointed.

·

On October 27, 2010, public officials AB belonging to defendant Yangcheon-gu had cancelled the plaintiff's resident registration (hereinafter the first cancellation) on the ground of "receivation while abroad on September 17, 2010" (hereinafter referred to as "receivation of the first cancellation). According to the cancellation, the "settlement status of local residents while abroad prepared by the defendant Yangcheon-gu (BB)" is indicated as the plaintiff's Korean, Chinese name, resident registration number, name of the head of household, and "F and the last address at the time of departure" as the plaintiff's Korean, Chinese Chinese name, resident registration number, and the name of the head of household, "Seoul Yangcheon-gu K apartment 160-308", and it is described as the "Seoul-gu Hong Kong on September 17, 2010", the date of the settlement of resident registration cards and the details of the settlement.

C) After the first cancellation, the Plaintiff becomes aware of the first cancellation and filed an objection, and the public official belonging to Yangcheon-gu was corrected and re-registered ex officio on November 4, 2010.

After the above re-registration, the public official of Yangcheon-gu, the defendant Jung-gu, also notified the defendant Jung-gu, and accordingly, the public official of Jung-gu, the defendant Jung-gu, entered the "Details of Correction" on November 4, 2010 as the "Cancellation of Grounds for Correction" on August 12, 2005, and cancelled the resident registration number of Ma.

D) On the other hand, the re-registered internal resolution document (A evidence No. 5-2) dated November 4, 2010, stating that "I wish to re-register the resident registration ex officio as a resident because there is a civil petition that there is no local migration from the residents of the Dong as of October 26, 2010 after being notified of the local migrants by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security." The document is divided into "persons, resident registration numbers, addresses, place of registration, parents' names, passport numbers and immigration stations, and non-highland". While the number of resident registration number of the plaintiff and the name of the Dong is the same number, the document in the column of the plaintiff is divided into "Y apartment-gu Seoul, 16-308", "Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul E, name of parents", "FC, passport numbers and immigration regions", "resident in the remarks column, and the document is written in the remarks column of the Z," "resident and the name of the Dong" as "resident in the remarks column."

4) On November 4, 2010 after the first cancellation of the Plaintiff’s resident registration, the Minister of Security and Public Administration of the Republic of Korea stated that ex officio correction and re-registration has not yet been cancelled after notification of immigration. On May 10, 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs requested the Minister of Foreign Affairs to inquire about the date of issuance, etc. of the residence passport to the person who was not arranged after notification of immigration to maintain the computerized data on resident registration. On May 15, 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a reply stating “the date of issuance of the last passport and the type of the passport after inquiring about the name and resident registration number of the Plaintiff, resident registration number, M passport number, and name of the Plaintiff ( September 17, 2010), and the date of issuance of the residence passport as stated in the list of immigration passport persons:

B) On May 29, 2012, the Minister of Security and Public Administration notified the head of local government such as the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the head of local government of the plan to improve the resident registration system, including the list, and the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the defendant Yangcheon-gu, the agency having jurisdiction over the resident registration, and the public official AD under his control re-exploed the plaintiff's resident registration on the ground of "local migration" on June 26,

(hereinafter referred to as "the second cancellation").

C) Around July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that there was no medical insurance among the medical care provided by the Gangnam-gu Seoul AE members. The Plaintiff’s health insurance qualification was lost on June 26, 2012, and was re-registered on July 2, 2012, which was re-registered as the following. Upon the Plaintiff’s objection, the Defendant Yangcheon-gu re-registered the Plaintiff’s resident registration retroactively on July 3, 2012.

5) Plaintiff’s civil petition filing and Defendant Republic of Korea’s measures

A) On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition related to the instant case with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on July 6, 2012, issued a passport to the Hong Kong Branch of Hong Kong on the ground of "administrative error in relation to his/her passport," and issued a passport with the term of validity until July 16, 2012, which was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, until July 16, 2022. The new passport integrated information management system managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea stated that the above person and the Dong name are deleted the resident number of the resident of the Republic of Korea on the date of his/her withdrawal, and thus re-issuance of the passport."

B) Meanwhile, the documents (Evidence No. 6-7) submitted on or around July 26, 2012 by the Plaintiff requesting the disclosure of information to the Ministry of Security and Public Administration are written as follows: 1) the list of notification of locally abroad (public document: consular secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade-31537/10, October 25, 2010), name A, name A, and issuance date 10917; passport number AA, resident registration number C; the last address of Songpa-gu Seoul X apartment at the time of departure from Korea; 2) the confirmation date of the issuance date of the passport for overseas residents (public document: the passport of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the passport number of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the passport number of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010-17/107/1087/10, 257/15, 205).

6) On July 2012, the Plaintiff reported his/her official document forgery, etc. to Dong name M, who entered the Plaintiff’s resident registration number in his/her official document forgery, etc., and on October 22, 2012, the public prosecutor of the Seoul Eastern District Public Prosecutor’s Office (Seoul East District Public Prosecutor’s Office) rendered a non-prosecution decision that he/she has no right to institute prosecution on the ground that his/her official document forgery was completed, although he/she did not confirm his/her name M as a person who was born in Hong Kong and needs to have a separate back resident registration number. On August 12, 2005, the Plaintiff deemed the Plaintiff as the name of Dong name and the family registration number of the Plaintiff without permission without permission by deeming the Plaintiff as the name of Dong name and the family registration number of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff and without permission.

[Grounds for recognition: Gap 1 through 9, 14, 17, 20, 21, Eul 2 through 4, Eul 1, 3, 4 (including each number), Eul 2 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 1.

(c) Public officials' duty of care;

1) It is natural that a public official in charge of public affairs, such as the affairs of the State or a local government, has the authority to directly interpret the relevant laws and regulations related to the affairs and to perform such affairs accordingly, and thus, it is required to have sufficient relevant laws and regulations or necessary knowledge about the affairs in charge. Therefore, if each public official does not know the relevant laws and regulations that should naturally know about the affairs in charge, or did not have necessary knowledge, thereby causing damage

2) If it is necessary to verify the name, photograph, resident registration number or address of a person aged 17 or older as a resident of the Republic of Korea, any person who has a domicile or residence for 30 days or more in the Republic of Korea (Article 6 of the Resident Registration Act; Article 6 of the Resident Registration Act; hereinafter the same shall apply); if a person is a national of the Republic of Korea, a State agency, a local government, a public organization, a social organization, an enterprise, etc., received civil petition documents or other documents in the performance of his/her duties; if it is necessary to verify the identity, photograph, resident registration number or domicile of a person aged 17 or older as a resident registration certificate without attaching any documentary evidence (Article 25); if it is necessary to verify the identity or residence of a person aged 17 or older as a resident in the course of performing his/her duties, such as arresting an offender, it is necessary to request a presentation of resident registration certificate (Article 26).

In addition, if the resident registration is registered under the Resident Registration Act, the registered domicile is deemed to be a domicile in the public law relationship (Article 23). Accordingly, not only the exercise of various fundamental rights such as the right to vote, the eligibility for election, the right to claim social security benefits (the National Basic Living Security Act, the National Health Insurance Act, the Act on Welfare of Disabled Persons, etc.), but also the public domain of the general public such as military service duty (the Military Service Act, the Framework Act on Civil Defense

Therefore, the Resident Registration Act provides that a person who has filed a double report of resident registration place shall be subject to criminal punishment (Article 10(2)), a person who has filed a false report or application, or a person who unlawfully uses another person’s resident registration number (Article 37 subparag. 3 and 8), and on the other hand, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may investigate the facts if there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the reported matters are different from the facts. If a person liable to file a report fails to file a report, or if the reported matters are confirmed to be different from the facts, he/she may make the person file a report within a fixed period of time; if a person files a report, he/she may take measures ex officio by obtaining confirmation from the head of the Tong/Ri/Dong without filing the report (Article 20(1)3, 5, and 6). In order to take such measures, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall ensure that the person is not obliged to file an objection to the resident registration number or to use the name and resident registration number as well as the need to use it widely.

In light of the above laws and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree, a public official in charge of affairs on the premise of a resident registration report or resident registration number shall have the right to investigate the authenticity of the actual resident registration report, not only the documents submitted for resident registration report or improvement of resident registration or the documents notified by other agencies, but also the actual resident registration report.

3) Every citizen who intends to travel abroad shall carry a passport issued by the Passport Act (Article 2. c. of the Passport Act; hereinafter the provisions of the Passport Act); the name, nationality, sex, date of birth, resident registration number and photograph of the passport holder shall be stated in the passport (Article 7(1)2); the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the authority to issue the passport, may collect, keep and manage information necessary to carry out the passport operations as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including the fingerprints, address, contact address, domestic emergency contact address, passport issuance record, etc. of the person to whom the passport is issued; the person who intends to obtain the passport, shall apply for the issuance of the passport to the Minister of Foreign Affairs while providing information under Article 8 (Article 9); the person shall not obtain or arrange the issuance, reissuance of the passport by other unlawful means; and shall not obtain or arrange the issuance, reissuance of the passport (Article 16); the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which provides for an application for prohibition of the issuance of the passport and other basic passport certificates (Article 4).

In addition, a passport is used as a certificate to confirm the identity of an individual of the people because it is used as an identification card, such as a resident registration certificate, an automobile driver's license, etc.

In full view of the contents of the above statutes, or the tendency of expansion of the purpose of the passport, a public official in charge of the issuance of a passport has a duty of care to investigate whether the contents of the documents submitted by an applicant for the issuance of a passport coincide with the contents of the documents submitted by him/her, and if there are doubts about the contents of each of the documents submitted, that public official has a duty of care to examine whether the contents of the documents are consistent with the actual contents of the documents. Furthermore, a public official in charge of the issuance of a passport to overseas Koreans in a diplomatic mission must be aware of the practice of resident registration affairs for overseas Koreans, and a public official has a duty of care to check whether there is any error by examining the contents of the passport to be reissued with the previous passport

4) Meanwhile, according to the nature of each service, a public official may only examine applications filed by interested parties, such as a civil petitioner, or documents attached thereto, or documents notified by other agencies, in performing the pertinent service. In a case where it is not authorized to examine whether the details stated are identical with actual facts, the so-called formal review right is granted. However, even in such a case, where the external descriptions of documents or documents, etc., which serve as the basis for the performance of service, can easily verify errors, etc., the act of discovering, correcting, or taking measures to confirm additional facts is within the scope of the formal review right. The act of discovering, correcting, or taking measures to confirm additional facts, etc. is within the scope of the formal review right. In a case where a public official performs the duty without easily discovering errors, etc.

D. Determination as to the establishment of a tort by Defendant Jung-gu and Korea

1) Determination as to Defendant Jung-gu

A) On August 12, 2005, a public official in charge of the Defendant Jung-gu, whose name the Plaintiff’s resident registration number was indicated, was in charge of maintaining the family register or resident registration number at the time. Therefore, for Korean residents born outside the Republic of Korea, the resident registration number is not granted (Article 6(1) and (3) of the Resident Registration Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (as for the fact that a person born outside the Republic of Korea and Jung-gu, a public official in charge of the affairs related to resident registration is aware that he/she can obtain the resident registration number after entering the Republic of Korea

The Dong name M is a person born outside the Republic of Korea, and as at the time of August 12, 2005, when the public official belonging to the defendant Jung-gu entered ex officio the resident registration number, the family register (Evidence A2-2) indicating that the Dong name was born in Hong Kong and the resident registration number was not granted, and thus, the defendant Jung-gu public official at the time of August 12, 2005 could have easily known the fact.

Nevertheless, it is true that S does not grant a resident registration number due to the birth of Hong Kong. It is negligent to give the plaintiff's resident registration number to M without additional inquiry through N's family register or a transcript of a family register or the plaintiff's resident registration number, and it is not possible to find easily even if S has only formal examination right or substantial examination right, regardless of whether S's right is a formal examination right or a substantive examination right.

B) On this issue, the defendant Jung-gu has a list to arrange the maintenance list by accessing the information processing system in order to improve the resident registration number pursuant to Article 670 of the established rules of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if one of the items is selected, the defendant Jung-gu has been examined at the same time. Each item is the relation with the family head, name, "name," "resident registration number," "date of birth," "gender," "type of error," and "after the correction of the resident registration number is omitted from the family registration number because the resident registration number is not assigned from the beginning," and all of "after the correction and correction of the resident registration number is not possible from the beginning." Accordingly, since the public official in charge of the maintenance is found to have maintained the family registration number of M through the information processing system of N's father's father's father's father's name, but there was no physical error in the search and correction of M's resident registration number, the plaintiff's name was found to have been recorded in the order of M's physical correction and correction.

As seen earlier, N's family register subject to maintenance including Dong name M is indicated in the fact that Dong name was born at Hong Kong, and only such fact could have been found out. Even if N's "N's son member subject to maintenance" on the screen itself, as seen in Eul's 3 evidence, Dong name could not be confirmed immediately, Article 670 No. 4 of the Supreme Court's Family Register Rules as seen in the attached Table 2 provides that "if there is a family register having been corrected or recorded ex officio, the head of Si/Eup/Myeon shall, as seen in the attached Table 2, issue a copy of the above M's family register in accordance with the order of list by printing out the list of names stated in the attached Form 1, the name of Dong name is 0, the name of Dong name is 0, and that of Dong name is 1, the name of Dong name is 0, and that of Dong name is 1, the name of Dong name is 0, the name of Dong name is 4, and that of Dong name is 0, the above 1, the name of Dong name.

2) Defendant South Korea

(A) negligence with respect to the primary cancellation

A public official in charge of the issuance of a passport to a Korean consul stationed in Hong Kong who belongs to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea is also in a position to take charge of issuing a passport to Korean nationals residing in Hong Kong, and his father N, who resides in Hong Kong on September 16, 2010, submitted to the Hong Kong, the same name at the time of the application for the reissuance of a passport for the renewal of M's passport, and through an application for the reissuance of a passport and accompanied documents, it can be easily confirmed the fact that the name of the person was born in Hong Kong through his residence, place of birth, details of the previous passport issuance, etc.

In fact, as of September 16, 2010, M, who is the Dong name, submitted "Y" passport, one of the documents required by the practical manual for the issuance of a passport, when applying for the reissuance of a passport to the Hong Kong consulates, and the resident registration number stated in the passport can be easily confirmed out. Thus, even if the above public official's examination right is only a formal matter, it is negligent that the Dong name, which was recorded on the above passport, believed only the M, which was recorded on the above passport's family relation certificate without verifying the resident registration number on the passport, and issued the passport which entered the plaintiff's resident registration number on which the plaintiff's resident registration number on the passport was stated (the defendant Republic of Korea submitted his identity inquiry to the National Police Agency at the time of applying for the reissuance of a passport on September 16, 2010, and as such, the above public official is not guilty, and thus, it is not included in the plaintiff's application for the suspension of the issuance of a passport or the plaintiff's resident registration number on the passport.

Therefore, on September 17, 2010, Dong name was negligent in not verifying Dong name's resident registration number, basic domicile, etc. to the public officials in charge of the Hong Kong consular official belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea who issued a passport with the Plaintiff's resident registration number to Dong name M.

B) Defendant Republic of Korea’s fault with respect to the second cancellation

According to the above facts, the defendant Yangcheon-gu re-registers the plaintiff's resident registration according to the plaintiff's first cancellation, and thereafter notifies the defendant Jung-gu of the fact. The defendant Jung-gu public official in charge of the defendant Jung-gu deleteds the resident registration number assigned on August 12, 2005 to Dong name M on November 4, 2010. Nevertheless, the defendant Jung-gu Minister of Security and Public Administration caused the plaintiff's mistake as local migrants, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs notified the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the fact-finding about the fact-finding's request about the fact-finding of around May 2012 to the Minister of Security and Public Administration as the plaintiff, and notified the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the fact-finding and the Minister of Foreign Affairs again notified the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc. of the fact.

In other words, even though the Plaintiff’s resident registration was re-registered on November 4, 2010, the Minister of Security and Public Administration did not verify the reasons for re-registration and did not easily mislead the Plaintiff as locally locally obtained. If the Minister of Foreign Affairs receives a request from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for fact-finding, he/she should have verified the family relation certificate of Ma and the details of the existing issuance of the passport, etc. submitted on September 16, 2010. However, he/she neglected this and notified the Plaintiff again to the Minister of Security and Public Administration of the same mistake as when the first cancellation was made. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s resident registration was later cancelled. Even after November 4, 2010, the Plaintiff did not know the Plaintiff’s personal right to self-determination of personal information, which was the cause of second cancellation of the Plaintiff’s second resident registration, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the Plaintiff’s personal right as seen above by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on September 16 and September 17, 2010.

E. Whether the defendant Yangcheon-gu constitutes tort

1) As to the primary cancellation

According to the above facts, Defendant 2 was notified by the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 26, 2010 of the list of local migration 1, and the name, resident registration number, address, passport number, present owner and immigration office of the Plaintiff, and Defendant 2 is identical to the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, place of registration, and address, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was negligence on the part of the public official in charge of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (However, according to each entry of evidence No. 6-7, the above list of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 31537, Oct. 25, 2010 and the above list of the 20-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 10, the above list of the 10-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1, which is the last 20-dong 1, which is the 30-dong 20-dong 1, which is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the above list of the 20-dong 1,015.

In addition, on September 16, 2010, Dong name entered the basic domicile of "R in Seoul," which was submitted at the time, as well as the basic domicile on the family relation certificate. The fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs grasps the plaintiff as a local resident while abroad is due to the name of Dong name entered the plaintiff's resident registration number on September 17, 2010 (i.e., the name of Dong name issued the residence passport to Ma and notified the result to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Article 26 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act). If a public official of Hong Kong at that time notified the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the name of Dong name to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, his resident registration number of Ma can be mistakenly stated as the plaintiff, but his address or Dong name should be stated as "Seoul, X 5dong 301" or "Seoul, which is the Seoul National Police Agency's basic domicile, and the name or Dong name of Dong name should not be stated in the 3-gu Seoul National Police Agency's new domicile.

2) We examine the second cancellation.

No specific descriptions of the list notified by the defendant Yangcheon-gu at the time of the second cancellation are known (the defendant Yangcheon-gu's assertion to the effect that it was notified as the evidence No. 1 even at the time of the second cancellation, but it is apparent that it was notified on October 26, 2010). Even if the list notified by the defendant Yangcheon-gu at the time of the second cancellation is the same as the evidence No. 1 No. 4, No. 1, No. 1 and No. 3, the defendant Yangcheon-gu's public official in charge of Yangcheon-gu is negligent.

In other words, the defendant Yangcheon-gu has already cancelled the plaintiff's resident registration and re-registered the second time. Thus, if the second time is notified of the list of migrants, which became the basis for the second time and date of cancellation, the defendant's family relation maintenance work on the ground of "local migration on September 16, 2010," which is the same ground for the second time and date of the same cause, has a greater duty of care than the first time to perform the original work. Furthermore, the defendant Yangcheon-gu shall re-register the first after cancellation, and separate the plaintiff's name, address, address, basic domicile, parents' name, passport number and non-resident registration number from the second time to the second time and separate the plaintiff's name, address, basic domicile place, parents' name, etc. from the second time to the public official in charge of the defendant's family relation from the second time to the second time to the public official in charge of the second time after the cancellation of the plaintiff's family relation registration certificate, and it is also necessary to notify the public official in charge of the second time and second time to cancel the same.

Nevertheless, as the public official in charge of defendant Yangcheon-gu stated that he/she had been negligent in indicating that he/she had the name and the second cancellation of the name of the resident registration number. On the other hand, on February 14, 2013, the plaintiff filed a request for cancellation of the official registration certificate No. 1 to the Jung-gu, and was provided with the two or six copies of the resident registration certificate No. 1. 1. On September 17, 2010, the five copies of the resident registration certificate No. 1 were indicated as the cancellation of the resident registration certificate of Yangcheon-gu, and the date of issuance of the certificate No. 1 appears as the date of cancellation on November 3, 2010, the plaintiff could not be found to have been found to have been deleted immediately after the cancellation of the resident registration certificate of Yangcheon-gu, which was recorded as the resident registration certificate No. 2, which was recorded as the resident registration number No. 1 and recorded as the resident registration number No. 2, which was recorded as the resident registration card of Yangcheon-gu.

F. The establishment of joint tort, the Plaintiff’s damage and the amount of solatium

1) In order for a joint tort to be established, the common intent or common perception of the act among the actors is not required, but it should be objectively deemed that the act committed by each actor’s intentional or negligent act was jointly caused by the act committed, thereby causing infringement on rights against the victim and causing losses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da4871, Jan. 26, 1993).

Along on September 16, 2010 and September 17, 2010, public officials belonging to Jung-gu who made the cause of the primary cancellation of the defendant's resident registration number for M, the act of re-issuance of the passport to the names of public officials belonging to the Hong Kong consular officials belonging to the Republic of Korea, notification of the names of local residents belonging to the Hong Kong consular officials, notification of the names of local residents belonging to the Hong Kong consular officials, notification of the names of local residents belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Security, and subsequent cancellation of the names, as well as subsequent notification of the names of local residents belonging to each of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the first cancellation thereof, which provided the causes of the second cancellation of the registration, are still erroneous by the Minister of the Safety and Administration of May 10, 2012, and without accurately verifying the facts of the Minister of Foreign Affairs with regard to the former consular officials belonging to the Republic of Korea. Since the second consular officials belonging to the defendant Yangcheon-gu violated the duty of care of the defendant consular.

2) Korean nationals have general personal rights based on the right to privacy (Article 17), human dignity and value, and the right to pursue happiness (Article 10), as well as independent fundamental rights based on various constitutional principles, such as the above fundamental rights, liberal democratic fundamental order, democracy principles, etc. (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 9Hun-Ma513, 2004Hun-Ma190, May 26, 2005). This refers to the right for data subjects to decide on the disclosure and use of personal information by themselves. In principle, the act of investigating, collecting, keeping, processing, and using personal information constitutes a restriction on the right to self-determination of personal information. As one of such restriction, the Resident Registration Act allows the citizens to file a resident registration (Article 1 of the Resident Registration Act), and manages it by the State and local governments. However, the resident registration system was deleted by the Plaintiff’s non-registration and cancellation of the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination of personal information, which is a public official’s resident registration number for the immediately preceding two years, without being affected by the Plaintiff’s mistake of his/her resident registration number.

3) Therefore, the above Defendants are obligated to pay for the Plaintiff’s mental damage in cash.

In determining the amount of consolation money, the Plaintiff’s resident registration number was considerably long-term from August 12, 2005 to November 4, 2010; the name was cancelled once the Plaintiff’s resident registration number was reissued due to the reissuance of the passport against M; the name was cancelled again; the name was cancelled on November 4, 2010; the name was cancelled on July 6, 2012; the passport he was issued was cancelled after the first and second cancellation was the Plaintiff’s objection; the name was the Plaintiff’s resident registration number was not involved in the Plaintiff’s issuance of his resident registration number to M; the Plaintiff did not actually lose his eligibility to health insurance; the Plaintiff was also subject to strict management of his personal information; the Plaintiff’s resident registration number was cancelled or cancelled after the second and second cancellation; the Defendant’s personal information was also subject to strict management of his personal information; and the Defendants’ personal information was also subject to strict management of his personal information; and the Defendants’ personal information was also subject to strict management of his personal information.

2. Requests to defendant Gangnam-gu;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On July 6, 2012, after the second cancellation and re-registration, the Plaintiff became aware that Dong name M was issued a passport as the Plaintiff’s resident registration number and returned to Korea on July 6, 2012, the Defendant Gangnam-gu’s public officials belonging to Gangnam-gu were forced to arrest the Plaintiff while she issued the above passport issuance record to the Plaintiff, and forced 20 minutes of arrest, and committed a tort of 20 minutes of confinement. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of CCTV information in order to secure evidence was made public only because only 27 minutes of disclosure was made public or CCTV was not installed due to the lapse of the period of storage. This constitutes intentional destruction and concealment of evidence.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On July 6, 2012, at least 2:00 on July 6, 2012, the Plaintiff, along with her mother, visited the civil petition and passport division of Gangnam-gu Office, the office of the Defendant Gangnam-gu, and sent to AF an application form for issuance of Ma’s name (the Plaintiff’s resident registration number of a passport issued to Ma whose name is the Dong name is the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, etc. is recorded, but the Dong name, which was known as another route, entered the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, etc., and issued four copies in Korean and two copies in English in Korean in the passport issuance records, and then came to be issued at around 14:13:03 (the time indicated on the page 1 and 2 of A evidence 21; hereinafter the same shall apply) and at around 14:14:00.

After confirming that the photograph of the passport issued by the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff, the Defendant Gangnam-gu Civil Service Passport and a public official AF, who belongs to the Defendant Gangnam-gu, issued the said inquiry to the above place at around 14:14:02. However, at around 14:14:14:09, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother attempted to go, and the Plaintiff’s left hand or shouldered from that point to that point. At around 14:14:13, around 14:14:13, up to 14:14:13, and explained the situation to the Plaintiff, etc., from 14:14:13 to 14:15:04, the Plaintiff’s left hand over.

However, around 14:15:25, the Plaintiff’s mother is about to attract the Plaintiff’s hand and to the direction of the road, and the Plaintiff’s left hand that had been continued before that time. The Plaintiff’s mother was fluored, and the Plaintiff’s mother was unable to take the part of the Plaintiff’s hand, and up to 14:17:21, as seen below, AF was fluord into the Plaintiff’s left hand, arms, shoulder, etc., and AG was able to see the Plaintiff’s mother’s hand or shoulder, etc., leading the Plaintiff’s mother to the direction of the road, and the Plaintiff’s mother was able to fluort the Plaintiff’s body toward the right side of the road, and the Plaintiff’s mother was fluorted into the Plaintiff’s body and fluor, etc., and fluort the Plaintiff’s body to the right side of the road. The Plaintiff’s mother was fluord into the Plaintiff’s body, etc.

14:17:21 At around 14: AF continued to move from the office building of the Gangnam-gu Office and the Plaintiff, etc., and even thereafter, AF was towed by the Plaintiff’s mother in the direction of the Plaintiff, etc., and AF and AG continued to move the Plaintiff into the office of Gangnam-gu Office in the forepart of the Plaintiff, and AG continued to move the Plaintiff in the rear side, and around 14:17:38, where the situation continues to exist, at around 14:17:17:38, the person who was asked in the above situation was out of the office of the Gangnam-gu Office (14:15:25, the said four persons moved out of the scope of CCTV, such as 14:15:15:32, AG 15:37, and the head of Gangnam-gu Office was able to move the Plaintiff to the right side of the road, and 1:5:5 of the CCTV, who was out of the entrance to the right side of the Plaintiff’s new road.

In addition, at around 14:18:01, the Plaintiff left the building from AF, AH, etc. to the office of Gangnam-gu. At around 14:18:32, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s mother, AF, AG, and AH walk together and entered the building at around 14:12.

2) After that, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s mother, and the above public officials, etc. were fluent with the civil petition passport department and the office of the second floor of Gangnam-gu Office in relation to the request for return of the above inquiry, and approximately 20 minutes thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother left her place

3) On July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Gangnam-gu to disclose the information to the Defendant on July 14, 2012, from July 14, 2012 to 14:42, to verify the process of the above physical fighting and the situation at the civil petition passport and office office: The Plaintiff made a request for the perusal, viewing, reproduction, and seal of the changed CCTV as soon as the Plaintiff passed from the passport department of Gangnam-gu Office, and the Plaintiff made a request for the disclosure of information to indicate the “O” on the applied item, such as “(0) perusal, viewing (O) reproduction, and personal cargo”. The receiving official in charge of the information disclosure of the Defendant Gangnam-gu stated the above written request for disclosure as “Perusal and viewing” only in the document (O evidence 10-2), Defendant Gangnam-gu can hear the opinions of a third party on the ground that all or part of the information to be disclosed to the Plaintiff is related to a third party, and it can be notified from 201 to 318.2.2818.2

On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for perusal, viewing, reproduction, and reproduction of CCTV data between 42 minutes of the first 42 minutes at Defendant Gangnam-gu, and the Defendant Gangnam-gu filed a claim for “to provide the data in the form of reproduction and seal if only some images were disclosed in the form of perusal and viewing within 15 minutes at the beginning.” The Defendant Gangnam-gu notified the Plaintiff on September 11, 2012 that “the data requested to be disclosed on September 31, 2012 by the Plaintiff is the same as the already perused and viewing, and that there was no data for the time (14:40 minutes) consulted within the passport team, and no data is installed.”

Around October 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the purport of "wholly disclosed" as it was partially disclosed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on August 8, 2012, because the Plaintiff only made a decision to disclose the CCTV data perused and heard on September 11, 2012, but was not actually disclosed, and thus, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the purport of "wholly disclosed". On December 17, 2012, the said administrative appeals commission responded that "the CCTV data perused and heard on August 8, 2012" was not owned by the Defendant Gangnam-gu, and there is no other data to deem that the information is entirely owned, and that the CCTV data perused and heard on August 8, 2012 was also made public in the form of reproduction and seal. Accordingly, the Defendant sent the CCTV data to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCTV data").

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry or video, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as set forth in Gap evidence 9, 10, 11, 13, 21, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including each number);

C. Whether tort was established

1) Whether it is illegal arrest

A) Arrest refers to the direct and realistic restraint of a person’s body and the deprivation of the freedom of action. Whether such freedom of action is deprived or not must be determined as a whole. As seen earlier, it is not sufficient to recognize that AF, AG, and AH had led the person’s body or prevented the Plaintiff from intending to go. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the images of the evidence No. 21-1 and No. 21-2 were directly and practically detained by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the above public official’s act was arrested.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion includes the assertion that it is an unlawful exercise of tangible power against the Plaintiff’s body. The following is examined as to whether the exercise of tangible power against Defendant Gangnam-gu’s public officials is legitimate.

B) According to the above adopted evidence and facts, the above tangible force event was conducted in the process of confirming the passport photograph by considering that public officials AF, etc. belonging to defendant Gangnam-gu did not receive six copies of the passport issuance report, and requesting the plaintiff and the person on the passport to return the above inquiry report with the knowledge that he was another person. The above inquiry is about the passport issued to M, and although the name was written by the plaintiff's resident registration number in M's passport, and the plaintiff was issued with the above inquiry report to prove the plaintiff's damage caused by the erroneous entry in the resident registration number, from a third party, such as a public official in charge of issuing the above inquiry report, the plaintiff is not the person entitled to request the issuance of the above inquiry report from a third party, and it is not the person entitled to request the issuance of the passport, and thus a public official AF, etc. belonging to defendant Gangnam-gu, who is not the principal, is obligated to request the plaintiff to return the above inquiry report, even if the plaintiff did not receive any other person's request immediately.

C) However, even if the purpose of the request for return is to make it possible for the Plaintiff’s mother to take up various parts of the Plaintiff’s body from 14:14:09 to 14:18:01, as seen earlier, AF continued to put the Plaintiff’s left hand, arms, shoulders, etc., and, if the Plaintiff wishes to do so, she would not have any force. In particular, from 14:15:25 to 14:17:21 to 14:21 to prevent the Plaintiff’s mother from carrying out, AF and AG continued to put the Plaintiff’s body flickly, to the extent that the Plaintiff’s body was off, or from 14:00 to 14:01 to 01, the Plaintiff’s body was seriously fighting with the Plaintiff’s mother to the extent that the Plaintiff’s body flickly led the Plaintiff’s body to flat, and the Plaintiff’s body was to enter the Plaintiff’s body by using strong physical force against the Plaintiff, etc.

D) As to this, Defendant Gangnam-gu alleged to the effect that it is a legitimate self-defense (which is deemed as self-defense), although the issuance of the Plaintiff’s written inquiry is against M’s passport, the purpose of the issuance is to prove damage. However, since the purpose of the issuance is to prove damage, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s act is illegal, and there is no other evidence that the Plaintiff’s act is subject to criminal punishment. Thus, it is evident that the above public official’s act cannot be the self-defense that the Plaintiff’s act of issuing the written inquiry cannot be the self-defense that should be premised on the act of violation, and even if the Plaintiff’s intent was intended, it should exceed the permissible limit in the degree

Even if the above assertion by the defendant Gangnam-gu is considered to be a justifiable act, the act of a political party which does not violate the social norms refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not violate the social norms should be determined individually under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4151, Apr. 27, 2006). However, according to the above facts, the above public official's act in this case should be justified in terms of its motive or purpose; (iii) the plaintiff's exercise of its body should not be accepted in light of the above legal principles and social norms.

2) Whether the goods are detained or not

Confinement refers to restricting the freedom of physical activities in a place by preventing a person from leaving a certain place, including cases where escape is not absolutely impossible, and it is difficult to escape.

As seen earlier, at around 14:19:12, the Plaintiff entered the office building of Gangnam-gu, along with AF, AG, and AH, and around 20 minutes of the civil petition, passport and office were located. Although the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother were more than the Plaintiff’s mother, the civil petition, passport and office were opened, but around 20 minutes of the Plaintiff’s death, and as a result, the amount of approximately 20 minutes of the Plaintiff’s death, and all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, including the Plaintiff’s intention, are considered as having taken place. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that public officials belonging to Gangnam-gu have detained the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

3) Determination as to whether Defendant Gangnam-gu’s act of disclosure of information constitutes a tort

In principle, the plaintiff has the authority to request disclosure of CCTV taken by the plaintiff. However, the information that the plaintiff requested disclosure is CCTV images, and the plaintiff's request for disclosure of information can be the basis for the plaintiff's complaint. However, as long as AF et al. is not in the position of suspect since AF et al. during the plaintiff's request for disclosure, it cannot be concluded that the defendant Gangnam-gu's decision to disclose only part of the CCTV was illegal. Meanwhile, even though CCTV was installed in the civil petition passport team of Gangnam-gu's office, there is insufficient evidence that the defendant's decision to disclose only part of the CCTV was installed in the defendant's civil petition and passport team of Gangnam-gu's office, and as seen above, it cannot be deemed as illegal since the plaintiff's 20 minutes were not recognized as being detained, it cannot be deemed as a tort. Further, the defendant Gangnam-gu's above part of the information disclosure request of the plaintiff's information disclosure request cannot be deemed as destroying or concealing evidence. However, the plaintiff's submission of the plaintiff's evidence alone alone did not admit evidence to acknowledge the defendant's unlawful act.

4) The amount of consolation money to Defendant Gangnam-gu

When comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the intensity and degree of the assault by public officials belonging to Gangnam-gu, the form and duration of the assault, the place where it was committed, and the place where it was committed on roads or India, the Plaintiff’s age, the Plaintiff’s inquiry by the above public officials cannot be deemed illegal, and the Plaintiff’s attitude and degree of response to the above public officials’ request, etc., the consolation money for the above illegal acts shall be set at two million won.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition. As such, the Defendant Jung-gu, Yangcheon-gu, the Republic of Korea jointly and severally, the Defendant Gangnam-gu, the amount of KRW 10 million, and the amount of KRW 2 million from August 8, 2013, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until February 11, 2014, which is the sentencing date of this decision, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendants’ obligation to perform.

Judges Demotion

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.