[1] Whether the head of a local government falls under "accounting personnel" in the Legal Officers' Office (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The criteria for determining whether Article 4 (1) of the Punishment of Certified Public Officials Act constitutes a "serious negligence" defined as a requirement for accounting personnel's liability for compensation

[3] The case holding that the head of a local government's act of violating the law by gross negligence is a case where the head of a local government makes a substitute payment for a guaranteed obligation without securing sufficient security and without obtaining the consent of the local council

[1] Article 4 (1) 2 (b) of the Corporate Officer General of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "where accounting personnel have intentionally or by gross negligence inflicted damage on the property of the State or an organization, etc. in violation of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes and other relevant regulations and budget, they shall be liable to compensate." Article 2 of the same Act provides that "Where they have intentionally or through gross negligence, they shall be limited to accounting personnel." Article 2 of the same Act does not explicitly stipulate the definition of accounting personnel. However, Article 2 (1) 1 (k) of the same Act does not explicitly stipulate the head of a local government, and Article 2 (1) 2 (b) of the same Act provides that "persons in charge of accounting affairs of other countries other countries other than those listed in subparagraph 1 (a) through (j) of the same Article provide that "persons in charge of accounting affairs executed by a person listed in the items of subparagraph 1 (a) of the same Article shall also be subject to the authority of the head of a local government to carry out such affairs." Article 16 (1) 4 (a) of the Local Government.

[2] In light of the purpose of the Act stipulated in Article 1 and the fact that Article 3 of the same Act provides for the duty of loyalty of accounting personnel as one of the requirements premised on the responsibilities of accounting personnel, etc., whether it constitutes a case of gross negligence stipulated in Article 4 (1) of the Consolidated Officer General of the Office of Accounting, etc. shall be determined according to whether the degree of violation of the duty of good faith can be deemed as serious in light of the contents of the duties, by failing to comply with the provisions stipulated in the Acts and subordinate statutes, other relevant regulations and budget to be followed by the accounting personnel

[3] The case holding that the head of a local government's act of violating the law by gross negligence is a case where the head of a local government makes a substitute payment for a guaranteed obligation without securing sufficient security for the guaranteed obligation with the resolution of the local council and without obtaining the consent of the local council

[1] Articles 2, 4(1), 44(1), 49(1), 9(1), 91(1), and 106(1) of the Local Finance Officers Act / [2] Articles 1, 3, and 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act / [3] Article 115(3) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 10 of the Local Finance Act, Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4(1) of the Local Finance Officers' Act, Article 1, 2, 3, and 4(1) of the Local Finance Officers' Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu98 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 507)

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Board of Audit

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu50673 delivered on April 7, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 4 (1) of the Diplomatic Officer Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Council Act") provides that "where accounting personnel have caused damage to the property of the State, organizations, etc. by intention or gross negligence in violation of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, and other relevant regulations and budget, they shall be liable for compensation." Article 2 of the same Act provides that "the head of a local government shall be limited to accounting personnel, and Article 2 of the same Act does not explicitly list the head of a local government. However, Article 2 subparagraph 1 (k) of the same Act does not explicitly list the head of a local government. However, Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) through (j) of the same Act provides that "the person who deals with other State's accounting affairs other than those listed in subparagraph 1 (a) through (j) of the same Article provides that "the person who deals with affairs equivalent to the accounting affairs executed by a person listed in each item of subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Article shall also be included in the scope of the local government's authority to entrust the accounting affairs to the head of a local government.

However, Article 115 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "the head of a local government may, if deemed necessary for the public interest, perform an obligation to assume a guaranteed obligation upon prior resolution of the local council" and provides that "the head of a local government may perform an obligation to assume a guaranteed obligation, which is one of the accounting-related duties, shall perform the duties of the head of the local government, and according to Article 21 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, which provides matters necessary for the approval and management of the obligation to assume a guaranteed obligation upon delegation under Article 10 of the Local Finance Act, where the creditor or debtor intends to change the contents of the business or the guaranteed matters, he/she shall obtain approval from the head of the local government, so the matters concerning the management shall also be deemed as the duties of the head of the local government. Therefore, the court below's determination that the plaintiff, the head of a Gun who performs the duty to assume a guaranteed obligation and its management, as the head of the local government, shall be justified in accordance with the above legal principles,

2. On the second, third, and fourth grounds

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party company received 90 million won from the non-party company 1 to obtain loans from the non-party company 40. The non-party company received 90 billion won on April 29, 192 and the debt guarantee amount of 300 million won on May 9 of the same year. However, the non-party company did not obtain sufficient collateral such as the creation of mortgage in the course of questioning and debate on the above debt guarantee 90. The non-party company's reply that the non-party company would obtain 90 billion won on the first 10th 6th 6th 9th 9th 9th 6th 9th 6th 9th 9th 6th 90 9th 9th 6th 90 9th 90 9th 9th 90 9th 90 9th 90 9th 90 9th 1992 1st 20 9th 96th 22.

Based on such findings of fact, the court below determined that the plaintiff's property exceeds the principal of the loan, and it should be secured to minimize damage that may be caused by the guarantee, since the plaintiff, in order to guarantee the debt pursuant to the provisions of Article 115 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 10 of the Local Finance Act, Article 21 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 21 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., must be managed in accordance with the Military Guarantee Management Ordinance. In addition, the plaintiff, in addition to the establishment of a 2nd mortgage as to the 2nd half of the 2nd half of the 2nd half of the 2nd half of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd.

In light of the purpose of the Act stipulated in Article 1 of the Act and Article 3 of the same Act, the issue of whether accounting personnel or other persons commit gross negligence as one of the requirements under the premise for the liability of accounting personnel or other persons, which is one of the above premise, should be determined depending on whether the degree of violation of the duty of good faith can be deemed as serious in light of the contents of the business by failing to comply with the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes and other relevant regulations and budget to be observed by the accounting personnel in performing their duties (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu98 delivered on December 13, 1994). The Local Finance Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that the local government is not obliged to obtain a security for the liability of indemnity from the principal debtor, and thus, the municipal ordinances on the management of the company should not obtain sufficient security for the repayment of the principal debtor, such as the establishment of mortgage, if the creditor applies for the issuance of a debt guarantee certificate, and thus, it cannot be determined that the local government has a duty of reimbursement for the principal debtor.

Although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the court below, the decision of the court below to the same purport is acceptable, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criteria for determining the obligation to secure collateral or the repayment plan, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criteria for determining the gross negligence, and the precedents cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff are different matters from this case, which are inappropriate for being invoked in this case. This part of

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)