[2] The scope of "public official's duty" as a requirement for the State compensation claim

[3] The meaning of "undertake the duty" under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

[4] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the local government is liable under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, in case where the elderly who was selected as the "traffic free zone" in the course of performing public duties such as the protection of children, traffic guidance, and establishment of street order by ordering the head of the Dong to select a "traffic free zone" after establishing a "traffic free zone service plan" causes a traffic accident in the center of the intersection beyond the scope of the entrusted duties

[2] "Duties of public officials" as a requirement for the claim of state compensation include not only the power action but also the non-power action, excluding the activities of the administrative body as a private economic entity.

[3] "To perform the duties" under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act includes the act of performing the duties of a public official directly or closely related to the act of performing the duties of a public official, and in determining this, if the act itself appears to be an act of a public official by objectively observing the appearance of the act objectively, such act shall be deemed to have been done by a public official even if it does not actually belong to the act of a public official.

[4] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the local government shall be liable under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act in case where the elderly who was selected as the "traffic Irter" in the course of performing public duties such as the protection of children, traffic guidance, and establishment of street order by ordering the head of the Dong to select a "traffic Irter" after establishing a "traffic Irter service plan" and caused a traffic accident in the center of the intersection beyond the scope of the entrusted duties

The "public official" under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act refers to a person who is not limited to a person who is a public official under the State Public Officials Act or the Local Public Officials Act, and widely entrusted a public official and actually engages in a public official (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da5570 delivered on July 9, 191), and the entrustment of a public official does not change for the purpose of his/her temporary and limited activities.

Based on the facts of this case, the court below is justified in holding that the non-party is a public official of a local government as provided in Article 2 of the State Compensation Act within the scope of the activity of the non-party, within the scope of the activity of the non-party, who is a public official of the local government as provided in Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, within the scope of the activity of the non-party, on the ground that the non-party is justified in holding that the non-party is a public official of the local government as provided in Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, within the scope of the activity of the non-party who is engaged in the "transport Doer" activity plan, and the head of the Dong designates the "transport Doer" service personnel to designate him as the time and place of the activity, and has paid allowances in proportion

The precedents that are superior to the grounds of appeal are related to volunteer fire fighters, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

This part of the grounds of appeal is rejected.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

A. The "public official's duty, which is the requirement for the State compensation claim, includes not only the power action but also the non-power action, and the administrative body is excluded from the private economic entity (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da47245 delivered on Nov. 26, 199). The "undertake the duty" under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act includes the act of directly performing the duty of a public official or the act closely related thereto. In determining this, if the act is viewed as a public official's duty by objectively observing the external appearance of the act itself, it shall be deemed that the act is performed by the public official even if it does not actually belong to the act of official (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da14240 delivered on Apr. 21, 1995).

B. In light of the records, even if the non-party selected as a service personnel of the defendant, during the designated hours, was involved in the accident of this case while traffic control at the center of the cross-section beyond the scope of duties entrusted by the defendant, it is just that the non-party objectively had a close relation to the duties entrusted by the defendant, and that the non-party objectively had a close relation with the duties entrusted by the defendant, and that the public official was forced to perform his duties, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 2

C. In addition, traffic guidance for traffic improvement is not necessarily a kind of welfare administration that can be performed by the State, but can be performed within the jurisdiction of the local government, which is also a local government with the basic duty of dealing with the affairs related to the welfare of residents. Thus, the Defendant, a local government, selected Nonparty as a "transport-free zone" and entrusted him/her with the traffic guidance affairs within a certain scope as seen above, so even if he/she performed the traffic guidance affairs beyond the scope of entrusted affairs, it cannot be deemed an act during the process of performing state affairs.

In addition, considering the content and nature of the non-party's duties entrusted by the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the non-party is a private economic entity on an equal footing with the citizen, and the "transport of this case" activity is conducted as part of the defendant's welfare project.

The court below did not err by misapprehending the authority of the local government or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature of the work performed by the defendant through the "traffic separation" of this case.

We cannot accept these arguments in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)