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

A. The Korea Employment Promotion Corporation for Disabled Persons (the "Korea Employment Agency for Disabled Persons", October 9, 2009, changed its name to the "Korea Employment Agency for Disabled Persons"; hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation of this case") is a corporation established under Article 36 (1) of the "Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act for Disabled Persons") to carry out the business of employment promotion and vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons, and the plaintiff worked in the Daejeon Branch of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "the Daejeon Branch of this case") from February 12, 2004 to May 8, 2007.

B. On August 31, 2005, Sejong District Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") filed an application for the selection of a standard workplace for disabled persons with the head of the Daejeon Branch of this case. On October 20, 2005, the head of the Daejeon Branch of this case selected the non-party company as the disabled standard workplace for disabled persons, and entered into an agreement for the operation of the standard workplace for disabled persons with the amount of subsidies of KRW 350 million from October 27, 2005 to October 26, 2012.

C. On November 25, 2005, the non-party company filed an application for the first subsidy of KRW 175 million with the head of the Daejeon branch office of this case, and requested a grace period of KRW 175 million to submit a performance guarantee insurance policy for the remainder of the insurance coverage amounting to KRW 175 million. At the time, the plaintiff, as the vice head of the Daejeon branch of this case, was in charge of the selection and payment of the disabled standard workplace for the non-party company, approved the above grace period with the approval of the head of employment support division B and the head of the branch office of this case. On December 8, 2005, the Corporation of this case paid KRW 175 million to the non-party company for the first subsidy of KRW 175 million.5 million.

D. On July 31, 2006, the non-party company filed an application with the head of the Daejeon Branch of this case for the payment of KRW 175 million for the final subsidy without submitting the performance guarantee insurance policy of KRW 175 million, which was deferred. The plaintiff on August 24, 2006, prepared an official letter with the purport that "it is intended to pay the final subsidy of KRW 175 million to the non-party company" on August 24, 2006, and obtained the approval of the head of the branch office D who is a superior (the head of the employment support team at that time did not obtain the approval due to Byung), and the Corporation of this case paid KRW 175 million for the final subsidy to the non-party company on the same day.

E. From the second half of 2008, the non-party company suspended the operation of the factory and most workers die due to delayed payment of wages. On April 14, 2009, the Daejeon Branch requested the cancellation of the designation of the non-party company's standard workplace for disabled persons against the non-party company pursuant to Article 24 (1) 7 of the "Rules on the Support and Management of Disabled Persons Standard Workplace" (hereinafter the "Rules of this case") on the ground that the non-party company's business was unable to conduct its business due to the non-party company's discontinuation of business or the non-party company's suspension of business for more than six months. On April 15, 2009, the president of the corporation of this case revoked the designation of the standard workplace for disabled persons against the non-party company.

F. Accordingly, the head of the Daejeon branch of this case intended to recover KRW 295,83,00 (=350,000,000 + 71 months X non-performance period ± 71 months, less than KRW 84 months) of the subsidy corresponding to the period during which the non-party company failed to perform the duty of employing disabled persons pursuant to Article 24(4) of the Rules of this case, but among them, intended to recover the insurance amount of the performance guarantee insurance policy that was submitted at the time of the first payment of the subsidy.

Only KRW 175,00,000, 14,851,560, 3,717,100 for collection of seized claims for employment incentives for disabled persons, and 3,717,100 for dividends for auction, and the remainder of KRW 102,264,340 (=295,83,000 - 175,000,000

- 14,851,560 won - 3,717,100 won not recovered.

G. On May 26, 2011, the Defendant rendered a judgment on the liability for compensation that “the Plaintiff was liable to compensate KRW 116,11,549 to the State pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, Etc. (hereinafter “the Act”) on Liability of Accounting Personnel, Etc., but the Defendant is liable to compensate KRW 58,05,774 of the said amount by reducing 1/2 of the said amount pursuant to Article 5 of the Act,” which read “the Plaintiff is liable to compensate KRW 102,264,340 of the unpaid amount by reducing 1/2 of the said amount” (the difference between the amount of 102,264,340 of the unpaid amount and the amount of 100,000 won is attributable to the difference in the method of appropriation for collection expenses and interest).

H. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review on May 24, 2012. The Defendant: (a) rejected the period for submission of part of the performance guarantee insurance policy at the time of the initial payment of subsidies in violation of Article 16(1) of the instant Rule; and (b) did not state that only KRW 175 million should be submitted at the time of the final payment of subsidies, on the part of the “performance guarantee insurance document” as the “performance guarantee document” of the first decision for payment of subsidies, but did not state that the remainder of the performance guarantee policy should be submitted at the time of the final payment of subsidies. As such, the Plaintiff did not submit the performance guarantee insurance policy which was postponed by the period for partial submission of the performance guarantee insurance policy as above and did not receive the payment of KRW 175 million at the time of the non-party company’s final payment of KRW 102,264,340, which was the amount of damages caused by the above gross negligence; (c) however, the Plaintiff is responsible for compensating for the amount equivalent to KRW 1212/12,513170.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was grossly negligent, and it is also inconsistent with the principle of equity to deem that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have gross negligence on the part of the approving authority and the Plaintiff’s superior.

(2) Even if there is gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, if the State’s damage was caused by more than two accounting personnel’s act, each of them shall be held liable for damages depending on the degree of the occurrence of the damage. Thus, the Plaintiff shall be held liable for damages only on the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the degree of contribution to the damage caused by B, C, and D.

B. Relevant provisions

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On June 28, 2005, the instant Corporation directed the project promotion plan for the standard workplace for disabled persons to each branch office, and on July 1, 2005, conducted four-hour job training for the persons in charge of each branch office on July 1, 2005, and transferred the affairs related to the standard workplace for disabled persons from the headquarters of the instant Corporation to each branch office on July 4, 2005.

(B) On November 25, 2005, the Plaintiff requested the non-party company to suspend the submission of the performance guarantee insurance policy of KRW 175 million with respect to the amount of insurance coverage, and reported this to the employment support division B and the head of the branch office C. The Plaintiff instructed the Plaintiff to handle the insurance after consultation with the pertinent department of the headquarters of the instant Corporation.

(C) The plaintiff made a phone call to E, who is the person in charge of the enactment of the instant rule of the headquarters of the headquarters of the Corporation, asked about whether to grant the above grace period, and the plaintiff respondeded to the purport that E is possible (the defendant argued that E has given the first subsidy, "the defendant must secure performance security for the total amount of the subsidy decision," but the plaintiff has given the answer that it is possible from B and C, and accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff has given the non-party company the answer that it was allowed from B and C, and paid the first subsidy of KRW 175 million by delaying the submission of performance guarantee insurance policy for the non-party company and paying the first subsidy of KRW 175 million,00,000 to the non-party company. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not be excluded from the possibility that the plaintiff made a false statement to the non-party company and the non-party company could not give any motive or reason for giving preferential treatment.

(D) The Plaintiff reported the above response to B and C, and B and C approved the postponement of the above response to the Plaintiff.

(E) On December 8, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) made a document to the Nonparty Company B and C, requesting the approval of the official opinion on the initial grant of KRW 175 million to the Nonparty Company; and (b) attached it to the above official document; and (c) as a documentary evidence for performance, the above written investigation contains a guarantee insurance policy that the Nonparty Company entered into an insurance contract with the head of the Daejeon Branch and issued with the Nonparty Company as the insured, and entered into an insurance contract with the amount of KRW 175 million.

(F) On January 24, 2006, the head of the branch office of the Daejeon Branch changed from C to D on January 24, 2006, and C did not transfer to D the fact that suspended the submission of the performance guarantee insurance policy of KRW 175 million to the non-party company.

(G) On July 31, 2006, the non-party company prepared and submitted a final application for subsidies to the head of the Daejeon branch office of this case, and the said application was prepared in attached Form 10 of the Rules of this case, and one of the required documents is written in annexed Form 10.

(h) On August 2, 2006, the Plaintiff sent to the non-party company a written appraisal as supplementary materials related to the final grant of subsidies, requesting the list of persons with disabilities and one copy of the appraisal report and the list of persons with disabilities. The above written public notice approved by D of the Daejeon District President (the head of the employment support team B did not approve due to leave).

(i) On August 9, 2006, the Plaintiff conducted on-site inspections on the factory of the non-party company pursuant to Article 18(3) of the instant Rule. Based on this, the Plaintiff prepared an investment confirmation report stating that “The non-party company is deemed to have made the final investment in conformity with the mandatory number of persons with disabilities and the purpose of subsidies, and it is reasonable to pay KRW 175 million, which is the final payment of the final amount of KRW 350 million, out of the amount determined to be paid, as the final subsidy.”

(j) At the 9th day of each week, the Daejeon Branch held a position where the head of the branch office, the head of employment promotion department, the head of employment promotion department, the vice head of the employment promotion department, the vice head of the employment promotion support division, five vice head of the employment support division, and the vice head of each team reported the performance and plan of the relevant department. The Plaintiff, the vice head of the employment support division, as the vice head of the employment support division, was reported to the employment support division B and D by August 25, 2006 at the weekly business report held on August 21, 2006.

(k) B had been sick from August 23, 2006 to August 31, 2006 due to an accident causing injury.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, 10 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

(A) Whether the Plaintiff was negligent in delaying the period for submission of a part of the performance guarantee insurance policy when the initial subsidy was granted

The following circumstances, i.e., the rules of this case, known by the above facts of recognition:

According to Article 16, the assistance program owner shall subscribe to the performance guarantee insurance with the amount of assistance decision as the amount guaranteed within 60 days from the date of conclusion of the contract on the operation of the standard workplace for disabled persons, and submit the performance guarantee insurance policy to the head of the branch office. However, whether it is impossible to purchase or submit the performance guarantee insurance policy in installments cannot be viewed as clear only with the above provision. ② As a result, the plaintiff asked E, a person in charge of the headquarters of the Corporation of this case, and answers E possible to ask questions. ③ The obligation to submit the performance guarantee insurance policy is not stipulated in the law, but it is stipulated in the Rules of this case, which is the internal rules of the Corporation of this case. Since E is a person in charge of the establishment of the headquarters of the Corporation of this case, E's response to the interpretation of the Rules of this case. ④ The plaintiff reported the above E's answer to B and the head of the branch office of this case, and C approved the postponement of some of the performance guarantee insurance policy, ⑤ The payment of the first payment of the payment for non-party insurance policy is difficult.

(B) Whether the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to state that the remainder of the performance guarantee insurance policy should be submitted on the “written investigation into the decision of payment of the initial subsidy for the standard workplace.”

According to the evidence No. 8, the plaintiff explicitly caused the above facts in the above investigation document.

Although it is not stated in the above investigation, the fact that the non-party company entered into an insurance contract with the head of the Daejeon branch of this case as the insured and entered the performance guarantee insurance policy of KRW 175 million in the amount of the insurance purchased by the non-party company as the insured is identical to the above investigation document. The above investigation document is not a document obligated to prepare the Rules of this case. The plaintiff is deemed to prepare the above investigation document in order to clarify the fact that the plaintiff submitted the performance guarantee insurance policy only with respect to the part of the report and the amount of support decision. Considering the fact that the plaintiff did not have any grounds to keep the fact that the plaintiff had to have suspended the submission of part of the performance guarantee insurance policy in writing, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff did not explicitly state the above deferment of the submission in the above investigation document, and there

(C) Whether the payment of the final subsidy of KRW 175 million to the non-party company without receiving the performance guarantee insurance policy deferred by the Plaintiff constitutes gross negligence

1) The determination of whether accounting personnel, etc. are liable for gross negligence as one of the elements that are premised upon it, shall be based on whether the degree of violation of the duty of good faith can be assessed as serious in light of the contents of the duty, by failing to comply with the provisions prescribed in the Acts and subordinate statutes, other relevant regulations and budget to be followed by accounting personnel in performing their duties, in light of the purpose prescribed in Article 1 of the Meeting Act and the duty of good faith of accounting personnel prescribed in Article 3, etc. In addition, whether the contents of the duties are highly functional, managerial or mechanical and factual character (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9660, Jun. 27, 2003).

2) The fact that the Plaintiff did not receive the performance guarantee insurance policy deferred by the Plaintiff and paid KRW 175 million to the non-party company the final subsidy constitutes a violation of the statutes or other relevant regulations, and in principle, the performance guarantee insurance policy regarding the full amount of the subsidy prior to the initial subsidy was submitted. However, as long as the Plaintiff neglected the duty of care to confirm and urge the submission of the performance guarantee insurance policy deferred prior to the final subsidy, as long as the Plaintiff neglected to do so, the Plaintiff’s error should be assessed by gross negligence.

Therefore, the plaintiff is liable for compensation to the State pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Act.

(D) Amount of the Plaintiff’s liability for compensation

Comprehensively taking into account the provisions of Article 4(1) and (4) of the Act, where two or more accounting personnel have inflicted damage on the State, etc. by violating the provisions prescribed in Acts and subordinate statutes, other regulations, and budget intentionally or by gross negligence, each of their actions shall be liable for compensation according to the degree of the occurrence of the damage.

Therefore, in order for the Plaintiff to share B, C, D, and liability for compensation pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Act, the Plaintiff’s gross negligence is recognized, and this is examined.

B As the head of employment assistance division, who is a direct superior of the Plaintiff, the Board of Employment Report on August 21, 2006

In its significance, it was erroneous that the Plaintiff failed to verify whether the performance guarantee insurance policy was submitted even if it was reported by the Plaintiff on the scheduled final subsidy for the non-party company, but it did not participate in the approval due to Byung's disease at the time of granting the final subsidy. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was gross negligence on the payment of the final subsidy without receiving the performance guarantee insurance policy

C On January 24, 2006, when retired from the branch office of the Daejeon branch office of this case on January 24, 2006, it erred by failing to transfer or take over part of the performance guarantee insurance policy for the non-party company D, who is a successor. However, it cannot be deemed as gross negligence on the payment of the final subsidy without receiving the suspended performance guarantee insurance policy.

D is the head of the Daejeon branch office of this case, which was erroneous in approving the payment of the final subsidy to the non-party company. However, since it was not the head of the Daejeon branch office of this case at the time of partial postponement of the performance guarantee insurance policy for the non-party company, and it was not known that it was deferred by C, it cannot be deemed that it was gross negligence to approve the payment of the final subsidy without confirming whether the suspended performance guarantee insurance policy was submitted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that as long as all B, C, and D are not deemed to have gross negligence, they should bear the responsibility for compensation with the above persons is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Lee Gyeong-hoon

Judges' branch office counter

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.