(a) The case holding that if a collateral security becomes effective upon the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint by an employee of a Dong office based on a forged resident registration card, it shall be deemed that there is no responsibility for the Gu, and even if the subsequent revision of the law became the duties of the Gu, the liability for damages shall not be succeeded to the Gu

B. In a case where a local government newly having jurisdiction over an area due to the change of a district of a local government or the abolition, establishment, division, or merger of a local government pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Local Autonomy Act succeeds to its affairs and property, whether the debts are also included in such “property

A. The case holding that if a right to collateral security becomes effective upon the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint by an employee of the Dong office based on a forged resident registration card, it is not attributable to the Gu since it is the negligence of the official in the performance of his duties when he is entrusted with the certificate of seal imprint pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the former Local Autonomy Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 1988), and even if the amendment of the Act becomes the duties of the Gu, the above liability for compensation can not be succeeded to the Gu.

B. According to Article 5(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, in the event of the change of a district of a local government or the abolition, establishment, division, or consolidation of a local government, the local government that newly has jurisdiction over the area shall succeed to its affairs and property. However, in light of the provisions of Article 133(1) and (3) of the same Act, the term “property” in the same Act refers only to all the goods and rights that are valuable as property other than cash, and its liabilities shall not be included in

A. Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 2(1) of the former Local Autonomy Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4004, Apr. 6, 198); Articles 5(1) and 133 of the Local Autonomy Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da5570 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2119). Supreme Court Decision 91Da23455 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2613), Supreme Court Decision 91Da17207 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong191, 2803)

Dock Industrial Company

Attorney Kang Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na28469 delivered on October 1, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below rejected the defendant 1's request for the issuance of the above certificate No. 9 of the Act on November 18, 1987 by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's establishment of the above certificate No. 9 of the Act on the Establishment of New Resident Registration Card No. 9 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's establishment of the above certificate No. 9 of the Act on the Establishment of New Resident Registration Card No. 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's establishment of the above certificate No. 9 of the Act on the Establishment of New Resident Registration Card No. 1 and the non-party 2's establishment of the above certificate No. 9 of the Act on the Establishment of New Resident Registration Card No. 1 and the non-party 3's establishment of the above certificate No. 9 of the Act on the Establishment of New Resident Registration Card No. 1 and the non-party 2's establishment of the above certificate No. 9 of the Act on Oct. 4, 198.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)