206 Gaz. 15901 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

A person shall be appointed.

1. Y1;

YY from the head of the Gu

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

[Defendant-Appellant]

2. Y2.

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

June 21, 2007

July 12, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The Defendants, on May 23, 2005, as to KRW 357,00,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 350,00,000 among the Defendants, respectively, to each Plaintiff.

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

shall pay the money by means of money.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap 1, 3 through 9 (including each number), Eul 1-2, Eul 1-4, 1-5, and 3 (including any number), by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

가. a는 면허번호 00 - 000000 - 00, 성명 A, 주민등록번호 000000 - 0000000, 발급일자 200★. 00, 0., 주소 부산 ◎◎구 98읍 000 - 11번지, 적성검사기간 20★★, 0, 00. ~ 20 ★★ .

0. On October 200, the Minister of Busan Provincial Police Agency, where a copy prevention hole has been inscribed twice on the front and his photograph has been printed, forged a driver's license under the name of the Commissioner of the Busan Local Police Agency (hereinafter the above driver's license of this case). On October 0, 2005, the mandator stated that he was a commercial person and forged A's proxy certificate under A's name, which is necessary for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression (hereinafter the letter of delegation for the issuance of this case) with the seal affixed to B with the above driver's license and affixed A's seal affixed to B with the above driver's license. A's seal imprint affixed to the above letter of delegation for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression was not based on A's seal imprint.

B. On the same day, B visited the Dong office under the jurisdiction of Defendant Y1 to apply for the issuance of a certificate of the personal seal impression, and submitted the instant driver’s license and the letter of delegation. y who was in charge of the issuance of the said certificate of the personal seal impression, confirmed that the person entrusted with B’s face and the certificate of the personal seal impression coincides with that of the person entrusted with B’s photograph and the certificate of the personal seal impression, and issued four copies of A’s certificate of the personal seal impression (hereinafter “the personal seal impression of this case”) to B and B.

C. On October 0, 200, Defendant Y2, a certified judicial scrivener, prepared a mortgage contract document under the name of the Plaintiff and A, and a letter of delegation to Defendant Y2 to delegate the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate to Defendant Y2. Defendant Y2: (a) presented the instant driver’s license necessary for the application for registration from A to verify the identity; (b) stated the indication column of the real estate to be registered by the person liable for registration; (c) stated the description column of the real estate to be registered; (d) stated the description of the real estate to be registered by the person liable for registration with respect to the instant real estate; and (e) stated the description of the face-type, e.g., the body of the Plaintiff and Defendant Y2, who was a certified judicial scrivener; and (e) stated the name of the person liable for registration with respect to the instant real estate; and (e) introduced the name of the person liable for registration with respect to the instant real estate; and (e) stated the Plaintiff and the person attached the instant document to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

라. 피고 Y2는 같은 날 위 확인서면과 위임장, 근저당권설정계약서, a로부터 받은 A 명의의 인감증명서 및 주민등록등본을 첨부하여 ♥♥♥ 등기소에 근저당권설정등기 신청을 하였고, 같은 날 A 소유의 부산 ◎◎구 ▼▼동 000 - 13 대 120㎡, 같은 동 000 - 13 , 000 - 22 지상 철근콘크리트조 슬래브지붕 4층 건물 ( 이하 이 사건 부동산이라고 한다 ) 에 관하여 채권최고액을 450, 000, 000원, 채무자를 A로 하는 원고 명의의 근저당권설정등기 ( 이하 이 사건 근저당권설정등기라고 한다 ) 가 마쳐졌다 .

E. On July 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate based on the foregoing collateral. On the lowerman of the same month, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above collateral security with the knowledge that the above application for auction was completed, and the Plaintiff knew that the instant case was false at that time, and withdrawn the above application for auction on August 20 of the same year.

F. On the other hand, around July 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigative agency regarding B, A, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Y2, and the above A by introducing them to himself. A was missing in the above criminal case and subject to the disposition of suspending prosecution, the disposition of suspending prosecution, the disposition of suspending witness, and the disposition of refusing witness, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of non-suspecting witness, and the judgment was rendered impossible to read as the result of poor gathering of A’s unmanned on the instant confirmation document.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 200, 0. 00. 이 사건 근저당권설정등기를 마친 후 위 a에게 350, 000, 000원을 이자 월 2 % ( 매월 22일 지급하되 3일 이상 연체시 월 1 % 가산 ), 변제기 같은 해 5. 22. 로 정하여 대여하였는데, 나중에 위 a가 A가 아님이 밝혀져서 위 근저당권설정등기는 말소될 운명에 처하였고, 결국 원고는 대여금에 대한 담보를 취득하지 못하게 되었는바, ( 1 ) 이 사건 발급위임장에 A의 인감도장이 아닌 다른 도장이 날인되어 있고, A는 19★★, 0. 0. 생인데 이 사건 운전면허증에는 A가 도로교통법상 운전면허 결격사유인 만 18세 미만에 해당하는 19★★년에 운전면허를 취득한 것으로 기재되어 있어 쉽게 위조된 것임을 알 수 있고, 인감증명서 발급 업무를 담당하는 공무원 y에게는 인감증명서 대리 발급 신청을 받으면 신청인으로부터 위임장 및 위임자의 신분증을 함께 제출하게 하여 위임자의 신분증명서에 부착된 사진을 주민등록관리시스템의 등 · 초본 발급화면 사진과 대조하여 위임자의 신분

및 위임장의 진정성 여부를 확인한 후 인감증명서를 발급하여야 할 주의의무가 있는데도 , 위 발급담당공무원은 위와 같은 주의의무를 위반한 과실로 이 사건 운전면허증과 발급위임장이 위조된 것을 알지 못하고 이 사건 운전면허증 상의 사진과 주민등록관리시스템의 발급화면 상의 사진의 대조도 하지 아니한 채 A의 인감증명서를 발급한 직무집행상 과실이 있고, 이로 인하여 원고는 담보를 취득하지 못하는 손해를 입었으므로, 피고 Y1은 원고에게 국가배상법상 손해배상의무가 있고, ( 2 ) 법무사는 등기의무자가 제출하는 인감증명서와 위임장 및 근저당권설정계약서에 날인된 인영과 대조하고 본인임을 철저히 확인하여야 할 주의의무가 있고, 더구나 이 사건 운전면허증은 위 다항에서와 같이 쉽게 위조된 것임을 알 수 있고, 이 사건 a가 피고 Y2에게 등기신청을 위임한 위임장 ( 이하 이 사건 등기신청위 임장이라고 한다 ) 의 인영은 인감증명서의 인영과 비교하여 보면 육안으로도 서로 다르다는 것을 쉽게 알 수 있으며, 등기신청서류 중 확인서면에 a의 우무인이 육안으로 보아도 뚜렷하지 않을 정도로 꾹 눌러 비비면서 찍는 등 이 사건 근저당권 설정의 위임 당시 위 a가 A본인임을 의심할만한 정황이 있었으므로, 이러한 경우에는 지문이 있는 주민등록증을 제출하게 하여 무인을 대조하는 등의 방법 등으로 본인 여부를 한층 자세히 확인할 의무가 있다 할 것인데도, 피고 Y2는 이에 위반하여 위 a가 A이라고 속단하여 이 사건 근저당권설정등기를 대행하였고, 이로 인하여 원고는 담보를 취득하지 못하는 손해를 입었으므로, 피고 Y2는 원고에게 위 손해를 배상할 의무가 있으므로, 피고들은 연대하여 원고가 담보를 취득하지 못함으로써 입게 된 손해 ( 원고는 a에게 금원을 대여하면서 2개월 분의 이자를 받았으므로 이 사건 대여금 350, 000, 000원과 변제기까지의 1개월분의 이자 7, 000, 000원을 합한 357, 000, 000원 및 원금인 350, 000, 000원에 대한 지연손해금이라고 주장한다 ) 를 배상할 책임이 있다고 주장한다 .

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Y1

The Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint provides that when an applicant applies for the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint on behalf of the public official in charge of issuing the certificate of seal imprint, the above tenant and agent resident registration certificate (including driver's license under Article 7 (2)) shall be submitted. In such cases, the issuing agency may require the delegating person to verify the entries of the certificate of seal imprint; (Article 13 (2) shall be issued after checking that the applicant is the delegated person by resident registration certificate; and (3) the issuing agency shall issue the certificate of seal imprint; and (4) if it is difficult to verify the applicant's identity due to resident registration certificate, etc., the applicant's unmanned can be verified by comparing the applicant's resident registration with the electronic data and electronic method (Articles 13 (4) and 7 (3).

원고는 이 사건 발급위임장에 A의 인감도장이 아닌 다른 도장이 날인되어 있고, A는 19 ★★, 0, 0. 생인데 이 사건 운전면허증의 면허번호를 보면 A가 도로교통법상 운전면허 결격사유인 만 18세 미만에 해당하는 19★★년에 운전면허를 취득한 것으로 기재되어 있어 쉽게 위조된 것임을 알 수 있고, 인감증명서 발급 업무를 담당하는 공무원은 인감증명서 대리 발급 신청을 받을 경우 신청인으로부터 위임장 및 위임자의 신분증을 함께 제출하게 하여 위임자의 신분증명서에 부착된 사진을 주민등록관리시스템의 등 · 초본 발급화면 사진과 대조하여 위임자의 신분 및 위임장의 진정성 여부를 확인한 후 인감증명서를 발급하여야 할 주의의무가 있다고 주장하나, 발급위임장에 위임인의 인감도장이 날인되어 있어야 하는 것은 아니고, 운전면허증의 면허번호의 맨 앞 2자리가 면허취득년도를 나타내는 것이라고 일반적으로 알려져 있다고는 볼 수 없으므로, 면허번호가 00 - 000000 - 00라고 기재되어 있다는 것만으로는 이 사건 운전면허증이 위조된 것임을 쉽게 알 수 있었다고 보기는 어렵고 ( 더구나 이 사건 운전면허증은 복사방지용 홀로그램이 2중으로 인쇄되어 있는 등 정교하게 위조된 것이어서 법무사인 피고 Y2나 등기신청을 심사하는 등기관조차 위조된 것임을 인식하지 못하였다 ), 대리 발급의 경우에는 인감증명서 발급 담당 공무원에게 위임자의 신분증상 사진과 주민등록시스템상의 사진을 대조할 의무는 없으므로 ( 앞서 본 바와 같이 인감증명법시행령에는 수임인의 사진을 대조하도록 규정되어 있다 ), 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다 .

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that y had been negligent in issuing the pertinent certificate of seal imprint. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Y1 on such premise is without merit, as it is no longer necessary to further examine the remainder. [ Even if y was negligent in issuing the certificate, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff’s request for issuance of the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal imprint under the former Certification of Seal Imprint Act (amended by Act No. 6667 of Mar. 25, 2002) and the Enforcement Decree of the said certificate (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17867 of Dec. 31, 202) took a method of directly issuing the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal imprint with the seal imprint affixed by comparing the applicant’s seal imprint affixed on the form of the certificate of seal imprint and the reported certificate of seal imprint affixed to the Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal imprint as materials to verify the identity of the trader’s identity and transaction with the intent of the actor, and there is no need to view that the Plaintiff’s request for issuance of the certificate of seal imprint under the Presidential Decree or the Act is an indirect.

In cases where a certified judicial scrivener has received delegation of a case, he/she shall verify that the mandator is the principal or his/her agent by submitting a certificate of his/her resident registration certificate, etc. or by other similar reliable methods (Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act (amended by Act No. 7427 of Mar. 31, 2005), Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 7357 of Jan. 27, 2005) and Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act). In full view of the purport of each of the above provisions, a certified judicial scrivener shall confirm that he/she is the principal only with such certificate where there is no special circumstance to suspect that the mandator is the principal or his/her agent, or where there is any circumstance to suspect otherwise in the process of such verification, he/she shall be deemed to have the duty to verify whether he/she is the principal through multiple methods, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da465797, Jul. 29, 20074, 2007).

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is difficult for Defendant Y2 to ascertain whether he violated the duty of care to verify A, who is the person liable for registration, while handling the instant mortgage affairs. Defendant Y2, upon receipt of a certificate of personal seal impression and a driver’s license from the person without personal seal impression at the time, had the person with personal seal impression and the purpose of registration indicated in the instant confirmation document, and carried out the instant registration affairs of the instant mortgage. Thus, it cannot be said that the certified judicial scrivener breached the ordinary duty of care required at the time of identification. Furthermore, it cannot be said that there was any circumstance to suspect A as at the time, or that it is difficult for the Plaintiff 2 to find that he had a non-legal seal impression and a non-legal seal impression that it was difficult for the Plaintiff 2 to find that the above non-legal seal impression was forged, and thus, it is difficult for the Plaintiff 2 to view that the above non-legal seal impression was non-legal and non-legal, as seen in the above paragraph.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sang-hoon

Judges Kim Gin-ok

A statement of loyalty by judges.