[1] The degree of the duty of care required in the process of issuing a certificate of seal imprint to the public official dealing

[2] The degree of confirmation of identity of the holder of a certificate of personal seal impression as required for the other party to transaction

[3] In a case where Gap forged the power of attorney for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression under Eul's name, and then obtained Eul's certificate of personal seal impression by presenting the above application form and Eul's driver's license to the public officials belonging to Byung local government, and then acquired the loan from Gap and Eul by using the above certificate of personal seal impression, the case holding that Gap's damages amount was limited to 10% out of damages of Byung local government, considering the negligence that the former credit cooperative neglected to verify while issuing the certificate of personal seal impression, and the former

[1] In light of Articles 7 and 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 4, 2010; hereinafter the same), a public official handling the certification of seal imprint has a duty of care to prevent irregularities during the process of issuing a certificate of seal imprint by simply obtaining identification cards, such as resident registration certificates, to verify the applicant’s identity, and by using all available data and methods in place with the relevant certification agency.

Meanwhile, in full view of Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act prior to the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 18681, Jan. 15, 2005, and Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act and Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, the phrase “in order to verify the contents of a delegation certificate with the intention to verify the matters of a person’s resident registration certificate as to his/her personal information,” which is interpreted as “in order to verify the matters of a delegation certificate, with the intention to verify the matters of the person’s own authenticity.” In addition, unlike the case of the person’s application, the person’s own seal cannot be confirmed by electronically comparing the other person’s own seal. Thus, when a public official in charge

In particular, in light of the purpose of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, the verification of identification cards, such as resident registration certificates, is premised on the lawful issuance of identification cards. Therefore, if any available data and methods are available at the competent certification agency as to whether the identification cards are lawfully issued, the duty of care to verify by using them as much as possible.

[2] The certificate of a personal seal impression is proved by the certification agency that the applicant is the applicant himself/herself or his/her agent, and then the other party to a transaction with the holder of the certificate of a personal seal impression bears the burden of proving that the holder is the holder of the certificate of a personal seal impression by comparing it with the stamp image indicated in the certificate of a personal seal impression. Such presumption is de facto presumed, and it is not the only material to determine the identity of the holder of the certificate of a personal seal impression. Thus, the other party to a transaction with the holder of the certificate of a personal seal impression is in comparison with the stamp image indicated in the certificate of a personal seal impression in the course of a transaction, as well as through identification documents such as resident registration certificates or related persons.

[3] In a case where Gap forged Eul's letter of delegation under Eul's name and obtained Eul's certificate of personal seal impression to public officials belonging to Byung local government who are in charge of issuing Eul's certificate of personal seal impression, and then offered Eul's letter of application and Eul's certificate of personal seal impression with Eul's certificate of personal seal impression, and subsequently acquired Eul's loan and acquired it by using Eul's above certificate of personal seal impression, the case holding that Byung's damages amount was limited to 10% of Eul's own damages by considering Eul's gross negligence as the local government's own negligence because Eul's certificate of personal seal impression was issued by negligence in the course of justice and due to Gap's failure to accurately verify Eul's driver's license, and it was confirmed that Eul's license was forged by entering Eul's identification number in the computer system for issuing the certificate of personal seal impression and then it was confirmed that the above certificate of personal seal impression was forged.

[1] Articles 7 and 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 4, 2010); Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18681, Jan. 15, 2005); Article 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act / [2] Articles 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 4, 2010); Articles 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 2 and 8 of the State Compensation Act; Article 12 of the former Certification of Seal Imprint Act (Amended by Act No. 1057, Mar. 12, 2010); Article 136 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 221365, May 215, 2010)

Dobong Saemaul Fund (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Jipyeong, Attorneys Hu-type, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Western District Court Decision 201Gahap13920 decided May 23, 2013

April 9, 2014

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to pay is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 5, 2010 to April 18, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 90% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 10% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 5, 2010 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings as to Gap's first to 9, Eul's first to 11, Eul's first to 7, the result of the non-party 1's each appraisal by the non-party 1, the Yongsan Registry of the first instance court, and the result of the fact inquiry by the Hansan Registry of the first instance court,

[1]

○ The Plaintiff is a juristic person established under the Community Credit Cooperatives Act and doing business such as fund loans, and the Defendant is a local government.

○○ Nonparty 2, 3 et al. conspired to obtain loans from financial institutions by misrepresenting another person and obtain such loans from financial institutions.

On December 21, 2009, Nonparty 3 forged the power of attorney to issue a certificate of seal imprint at the Lee Dong-dong community center in the Defendant’s jurisdiction under the name of Nonparty 4, and submitted the above application to Nonparty 5 who is a public official belonging to the Defendant in charge of issuing the certificate of seal imprint, and Nonparty 3 presented Nonparty 3’s resident registration certificate and Nonparty 4’s driver’s license and conducted it as his agent.

○ Accordingly, Nonparty 5 believed Nonparty 3 as the agent of Nonparty 4 and issued three copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression of Nonparty 4 to Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “instant certificate of the personal seal impression”).

[2]

around December 2009, Nonparty 2 altered the certificate of personal seal impression of this case issued by Nonparty 3 as an agent of Nonparty 4 as if Nonparty 4 applied for issuance.

○ Nonparty 2 also forged Nonparty 4’s driver’s license by printing the personal information written on Nonparty 4’s driver’s license and Nonparty 2’s photograph on the Acryle board.

[3]

On December 28, 2009, Nonparty 2 forged the deposit transaction application, loan consultation and application form, loan transaction agreement, lease certificate, mortgage contract document, provision of personal credit information and written consent at the Plaintiff’s office located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, Dobong-gu, Seoul, under the name of Nonparty 4. The Plaintiff’s employee, who is in charge of loan, submitted the said written application for deposit transaction to Nonparty 6, who was in charge of loan transaction, presented the written consent of Nonparty 4, who was forged as above, and carried out the said alteration on the Plaintiff’s driver’s license.

At the time of ○○, Nonparty 2 applied to the Plaintiff for a loan of KRW 600 million, which is secured by ○○ apartment 4 Dong 309 on the ground of Yongsan-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) owned by Nonparty 4.

On December 29, 2009, the Plaintiff inspected the transfer household of the above apartment on December 29, 2009 through Nonparty 6, and confirmed the residence of Nonparty 4, and assessed the collateral value by responding to the above apartment on the same day.

○ Accordingly, on December 30, 2009, the Plaintiff trusted Nonparty 2 as Nonparty 4 himself, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the said apartment in the amount of KRW 780 million with respect to the said apartment on December 30, 2009, and transferred KRW 600 million to the account of Nonparty 4 opened by Nonparty 2 on January 5, 2010.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Official duties of public officials;

1) A certificate of seal imprint is a material confirming the identity of a trader and the identity of a trader and his/her transactional act are based on the intent of the actor, and thus, is extremely important for the general public’s transaction function. A public official handling the certificate of seal imprint has a duty to prevent fraudulent acts arising from the certificate of seal imprint issued in expectation that it will be used in work related to other persons’ rights and duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da63273, Jul. 24, 2008).

2) Articles 7 and 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 4, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that, at the stage of registration of a seal imprint, a person who has registered a seal imprint visit a certification agency under his/her jurisdiction to make a registration of a seal imprint and, if so, a person who has registered a seal imprint visit the certification agency under his/her jurisdiction to verify his/her identity by using an electronic data and electronic method as well as a resident registration certificate to verify his/her identity. In addition, at the stage of issuance of a certificate of a seal imprint, a person who has registered a seal imprint applied for a registration of a seal imprint shall not only verify his/her identity card, such as a resident registration certificate, in order to verify whether the applicant is the person who has registered a seal imprint

In light of these regulations, a public official who deals with affairs related to the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint has a duty of care to prevent irregularities in the process of issuing a certificate of seal imprint by simply obtaining a resident registration certificate and other identification cards to verify the applicant's identity, and using all available data and methods in the process of issuing the certificate of seal imprint.

3) Meanwhile, in issuing a certificate of personal seal impression on behalf of a delegating person, it is impossible to electronically verify his/her identity in order to verify whether the delegating person is the person who has reported his/her personal seal impression. The power of attorney prescribed in the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Personal Seal Act (attached Form 13), stating that “I delegate his/her personal seal impression to the above person in addition to the delegating person’s personal information.” Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Personal Seal Imprint Act provides that “I may request the delegating person to verify the entries in the

Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act provides that “to verify the entries in the delegation letter” as above is amended by Presidential Decree No. 18681, Jan. 15, 2005. Before the amendment, it was stipulated as “when there is doubt as to the authenticity of the delegation letter.” The reasons for the amendment are as follows: (a) to strengthen the verification of identity at the stage of reporting and certification of seal imprint and to prevent a person who is not a legitimate agent from applying for the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint by pretending to his/her agent (the introduction, etc. of a personal identification system by electronic comparison, and a notification system to the principal

In addition, considering the above provisions and the fact that the certification agency has already held personal information and there is no need to request one's resident registration certificate to verify personal information, etc., it is interpreted as "to confirm the entries in the delegation letter" as stated in Article 13 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act. It is interpreted as "to confirm whether it is actually delegated by the principal or not."

In addition, unlike the case of a principal's application, it cannot be confirmed by electronically comparing the principal's unmanned. Thus, the public official in charge is obliged to use all available materials and methods in confirming whether he/she is properly delegated through his/her resident registration certificate, etc.

In particular, in light of the purpose of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, the verification of identification cards, such as resident registration certificates, is based on the premise that the identification cards subject to verification are lawfully issued. Therefore, if available data and methods are available at the certification agency under its jurisdiction, it shall be deemed that there is a duty of care to verify the identification cards by using them to the maximum extent possible.

B. Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 15, 16, 21, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8.

On October 2006, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs (the Free Safety Administration) established a system that connects the items of "influence of the driver's license" to "influence of the driver's license" on the computer system for issuing the certificates of seal impression in preparation for any personal seal accidents caused by forgery of the certificates of seal impression.

○ Accordingly, the authenticity of a driver’s license can be verified immediately when the name, resident registration number, number, and secret serial number are entered in the connected screen of the item of “authenticity of a driver’s license” on the computer system for issuing a certificate of seal impression.

○, however, the code serial number of the driver’s license was introduced around July 2002, and the code serial number was not indicated on the driver’s license previously issued before, and the code serial number was not indicated, and the code serial number column of the above connecting screen was written with a notice tool stating that “the number is to prevent forgery with six pages below the right side of the driver’s license, which is small to the right side of the license. It is not written. There is no previous driver’s license.”

○ On December 21, 2009, at the time when Nonparty 5, a public official belonging to the Defendant, issued the instant certificate of the personal seal impression to Nonparty 3, Nonparty 5 stated the above notification form in the above connection page entry column.

○ Nonparty 3 presented Nonparty 4’s driver’s license to Nonparty 5 who is a public official belonging to the Defendant, and the driver’s license was written on February 11, 2005 by the issuing date, and indicated the cryp serial number.

○ Public Officials Nonparty 5 confirmed Nonparty 4’s driver’s license through the above connecting screen without entering the cryp serial number, and issued the instant certificate of personal seal impression to Nonparty 3 as the resident registration number and number coincide.

○, however, Nonparty 4’s driver’s license presented by Nonparty 3 was inconsistent with the electronic data of the National Police Agency, but the number of the resident registration number was inconsistent with that of the National Police Agency.

(c) Negligence of public officials;

1) According to the above facts, Nonparty 5’s public official, who is in charge of issuing a certificate of the personal seal impression, presented Nonparty 4’s driver’s license from Nonparty 3 and confirmed it through the connected screen of the “written inquiry about the authenticity of the driver’s license” on the computer system for issuing the certificate of the personal seal impression, and if confirmed, Nonparty 4’s driver’s license was forged.

At the time, it was indicated in the cryp serial number entry column of the above connected screen, but it was stated in that the notice section "shall be the number for the prevention of fabrication", and that the notice section "non-party 5, who is a public official of the defendant, has a duty of due care to accurately verify by entering the cryp serial number in the above connected screen in the cryp number entry column of the above connected screen, since the notice section is stated "non-party 4's driver's license that is not written, before July 2002, it was issued before the day of issuance and without the cryp serial number, and Non-party 3's driver's license presented by the non-party 3 was stated as the cryp serial number on February 11, 2005.

Therefore, in issuing the instant certificate of personal seal impression to Nonparty 5, it is deemed that Nonparty 5’s public official was negligent in performing his duties as a result of failing to accurately verify Nonparty 4’s driver’s license.

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that Nonparty 5’s public official Nonparty 4’s photograph shown on Nonparty 4’s driver’s license for Nonparty 4 did not see it with Nonparty 4’s photograph appearing on the Defendant’s computerized data. However, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that Nonparty 4’s photograph indicated on Nonparty 4’s driver’s license and Nonparty 4’s photograph appearing on the Defendant’s computerized data are identical to that indicated on Nonparty 4’s driver’s license

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that there was negligence on the part of Nonparty 4, who was issued the instant certificate of the personal seal impression by the Defendant to issue it to his/her agent. However, Article 13(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Certification of the Personal Seal Imprint Act provides that “in cases where a certificate of the personal seal impression has been issued to his/her agent under paragraphs (4) and (5), the issuing agency may notify the principal thereof by means of mail or mobile phone text transmission, etc.” and does not provide for notification of the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression as its mandatory obligation, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant has the obligation to notify the principal of the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit (in addition

In addition, the Plaintiff also asserts to the effect that even before the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case, the case where the certificate issued to a person without authority in the Defendant’s jurisdiction was used for a loan fraud and investigation was conducted. The Defendant’s public officials were negligent in issuing the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case to Nonparty 3, who is engaged in Nonparty 4’s agent despite the duty to pay more attention than being aware of it. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the public officials of the Defendant, at the time of issuing the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case, were aware of the fact that the certificate of the personal seal impression issued to a person without authority in the Defendant’s jurisdiction was used

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that there was a negligence on which the Defendant issued the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case and that there was an erroneous statement as to the issuance of the certificate to his/her agent. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s public official at the time of issuing the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case was erroneous with the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case, and there is no other evidence to

D. The proximate causal relation

1) As seen earlier, a public official handling the affairs of a certificate of a seal imprint has an official duty to prevent fraudulent acts arising from the certificate of a seal imprint issued as mentioned above, and thus, if a person other than himself/herself suffers loss due to a person who signed a contract with the person who misrepresented himself/herself as the holder of the certificate of a seal imprint issued, there is a proximate causal relation between the issuance of the above certificate of a seal imprint and the damage therefrom (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da63273, Jul. 24,

According to the above, the certificate of the personal seal impression was issued to the non-party 5's negligence on his own or his legal representative due to the non-party 5's negligence, and the plaintiff believed the non-party 2 who misrepresented the non-party 4 as the name of the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case and borrowed the non-party 600 million won to the non-party 4 himself, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression of

2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that there is no proximate causal relationship between the issuance of the instant certificate of seal impression and the Plaintiff’s damage, as it is not the instant certificate of seal impression issued by Nonparty 2, but the same is not recognized as being altered again.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the court below issued the pertinent certificate of personal seal impression to the non-party 3, who was a public official of △△ as his representative of the non-party 4. The non-party 2 modified the instant certificate of personal seal impression as being requested by the non-party 4, and the non-party 2 presented the Plaintiff's modified certificate of personal seal impression as above, and the non-party 2 modified the instant certificate of personal seal impression as above. However, although the number of issuance for verifying the issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression of this case was maintained, the Plaintiff's employees in charge of loan confirmed the issuance of the instant certificate of personal seal impression using the above issuance number.

Thus, even if the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the agent was modified as if it was issued to the principal, it is merely a part of the entire entries of the certificate of the personal seal impression, and as long as the issuance number for verifying the issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression was maintained as is, and it was confirmed that the certificate of the personal seal impression was issued in accordance with the issuance number, there is a proximate causal relationship between the issuance

3. Scope of liability for damages

1) A certificate of a personal seal impression is proved by the certification agency that the applicant is the applicant himself/herself or his/her agent, and then the other party to a transaction with the person holding the certificate of a personal seal impression proves his/her personal seal impression. Such presumption is de facto presumed, and it is not the only material to determine the identity of the person holding the certificate of a personal seal impression. Thus, the other party to a transaction with the holder of the certificate of a personal seal impression should verify the identity of the person holding the personal seal impression through documents verifying his/her personal seal impression or related persons, etc. in his/her transaction process.

2) However, according to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

○ Nonparty 2 applied for a loan of KRW 600 million to the Plaintiff while Nonparty 4 was working for Nonparty 4 himself. Nonparty 4’s residence was in the village of Yongsan-gu Seoul, and the location of the Plaintiff’s office was considerably far away from Dobong-gu Seoul, and Nonparty 4 did not have any trade with the Plaintiff.

The stamp image affixed on the loan application form and the loan transaction agreement submitted by Nonparty 2 to the Plaintiff was accurately inconsistent with the stamp image indicated on the instant certificate of the personal seal impression, and Nonparty 2 provided an apartment building owned by Nonparty 4 as security for the said loan, and did not present the certificate of the registration of that apartment.

The plaintiff did not visit the above apartment house to the public account book and did not directly confirm the resident.

○ Nonparty 2 printed his photograph and presented it to the Plaintiff. At the time, Nonparty 2 was 62 years of age, whereas Nonparty 4 was 78 years of age and 16 years of age.

○ The Plaintiff’s loan-related document form (the Plaintiff’s loan-related document form) contains a list to be inspected in the process of verifying the debtor’s real name in relation to the debtor’s personal identification card, and in the process, the list is written in the same word, so as to confirm the forgery and alteration of his/her identification card and to verify the authenticity of his/her resident registration certificate.

○ The Plaintiff was able to verify whether the pertinent driver’s license was lawfully issued using the “written inquiry about the authenticity of the driver’s license” on the homepage of the driver’s license test management body, but did not confirm it.

3) According to the above, when the plaintiff loans KRW 600 million to the non-party 2 who is working on the non-party 4 himself, the plaintiff neglected to verify the authenticity of the driver's license or to confirm the resident of the apartment provided as security, and thus, the non-party 2 was negligent in believing the non-party 4 as the non-party 4 himself, and such negligence caused the damage.

Therefore, in light of the above negligence of the public official belonging to the defendant prior to the above negligence, the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant is reasonable to be limited to 10% out of the amount of damages of the plaintiff 60 million won.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won (=60 million won x 10%) and to pay damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 5, 2010, which is the date of the plaintiff's loan to April 18, 2014, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance has partially different conclusions, the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognition amount among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed

[Attachment] former Certification of Seal Imprint Act: Omitted

Judges intentionally (Presiding Judge)