1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around March 19, 2009, the Plaintiff, as the operator of the B-automobile, was subject to a disposition of a fine of 50,000 won from the Defendant on May 8, 2009 on the ground that the Plaintiff, as the operator of the said automobile, passed the bus exclusive lanes located in the hot spring dong-gu, Busan, the hot spring dong, the subway station,

B. Accordingly, on July 14, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the violation of the Road Traffic Act by Busan District Court Branching 2009 and 805. On April 27, 2010, the said court rendered a decision to impose an administrative fine of KRW 50,000 on the Plaintiff.

C. On April 11, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an immediate appeal against the above decision with Busan Busan District Court 2010Ra259, and the above court revoked the decision of the court below and rendered a decision not to impose an administrative fine.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not work for more than 10 days in order to submit documents or attend a court in order to challenge the plaintiff's order of an erroneous fine for negligence. Since expenses such as advisory expenses for certified judicial scrivener, photographing expenses, transportation expenses, etc. were spent, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the sum of KRW 1,00,000 per day and KRW 2,00,000 per day for advisory expenses for certified judicial scrivener.

B. Where a public official of a local government causes damage to another person by intention or negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, the local government is obligated to compensate the victim for damage under the State Compensation Act, but the fact of recognition alone is insufficient to deem that the public official violated the statutes intentionally or by negligence while performing his/her duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.