Where a government grain custodian commits an unlawful act, whether it may be alleged that the State was negligent in preventing such unlawful act, and whether the State’s negligence can be a ground for offsetting negligence.

If a government grain custodian commits a wrongful act by using a cre in which the supervisor's supervision over the preservation and management of grain for himself/herself is neglected, he/she does not assert that the person who committed the wrongful act was negligent in preventing the State from committing the illegal act, and the State's negligence cannot be a ground for offsetting the illegal act in relation to the wrongful act.

Legal representative of the Republic of Korea Law, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice, and the Attorney Park Young-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The ratio of tin and four others

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 73Na206 delivered on November 28, 1974

All appeals by the Plaintiff, other than Defendant 2, against the remaining Defendants, and by Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Dong Young-gu, Dong Young-si, Dong Jae-gu, Dong Jae-gu, Dong Jae-gu, Dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong, Dong dong dong Kim, Dong dong dong dong dong Kim, Dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong, Dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong, and the case against Defendant 2 is reversed and remanded to Gwangju High Court. The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff among the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff who excluded the part against

First of all, we examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's performer against the remaining defendants except defendant 2.

The preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts are matters belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the original judgment. While examining various evidences presented in the original judgment in light of the records, the original judgment does not contain any error of law in finding facts as stated in its reasoning, and at the time of the original judgment, the original judgment that the plaintiff's negligence was processed due to the embezzlement of grain by the person in charge of the original grain storage, and the plaintiff's negligence was processed due to the plaintiff's occurrence of damages and the expansion of the amount thereof is just and there is no error of law in taking excessive consideration of the plaintiff's negligence by selecting a bridge concerning the offsetting of negligence in the disposition of offsetting negligence. In this case of seeking the performance of the guaranteed liability against the defendants who are the guarantor for the above grain keeper, the original judgment determined the role of the guaranteed liability in consideration of the above negligence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the

In addition, the court below is just in finding that the non-party's non-party's 300 grams 6,070 Gazy's 300 Gazy's 2,232 Gazy's 2,232's Dozy's 4,00,000 paid by the Defendants were repaid at the 1969 Nazy's 1969's Dozy's 300 Gazy's 4,406 Gazy'

Next, we examine the grounds of appeal against Defendant 2 of the Plaintiff’s litigation performer.

The court below determined, based on each of the above evidences, that Defendant 2 embezzled 6,270 kilograms of the government grain pit, which he had been in his custody and embezzled 25 kilograms of 25 kilograms, and that the financial commissioner under his jurisdiction did not take appropriate measures such as occasional inventory inspection against the Defendant, a grain custodian, during the period of the act of misconduct as above, and that there was a negligence with the Plaintiff’s relevant public official. In light of the Plaintiff’s negligence, the scope of damages against the Plaintiff should be limited to 4,180 Gamen whose pits were 4,180 Gamen. Thus, if Defendant 2, a government grain custodian, such as the original judgment, was negligent in monitoring the grain storage management of his own, and committed an unlawful act by himself, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the remaining negligence against the Plaintiff, and therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to offsetting the Plaintiff’s negligence.

The defendants (except for the defendant Twit-do, Kim Dong-nam, Kim Dong-dong, Kim Dong-dong, Kim Jong-nam, Kim Jong-dong, Counsel for the defendant's appeal) are examined.

In light of the facts that each Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the government grain storage and processing contract between the Plaintiff, Defendant 2, and the Nonparty, as indicated in its holding, and the fact that each Defendants committed an unlawful act as set forth in its holding, and the process of cooking evidence that acknowledged the facts causing damages to the Plaintiff, the court below was just and there were no errors in matters of misconception of facts contrary to the rules of evidence, or in incomplete deliberation or failure to perform the duty to exercise the right to explanation, and there were no errors in the determination of the amount of the remaining Defendants except Defendant 2, by taking account of the Plaintiff’s negligence, and there were no errors in the determination of the amount of the guaranteed obligation by the Defendants, other than Defendant 2. Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit. Therefore, the appeal against the remaining Defendants except the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, and the 2, Dongnam-dong Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong Association of Korea, Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong, and the costs of appeal against the Defendants were reversed due to the Plaintiff’s final judgment against the Defendants Association’ two and the Defendants’s appeal against the same.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)