As long as a final and conclusive compensation award is rendered, a civil claim for damages need not be protected.

As long as a judgment ordering compensation has become final and conclusive under this Act, a civil claim for damages, which is determined as compensation, need not be protected.

Article 31(5) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da381 delivered on September 27, 1962

Korea

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 3 and six others

Daegu District Court Decision 66Na139 delivered on August 17, 1967, Daegu High Court Decision 66Na139 delivered on August 17, 1967

All appeals are dismissed.

Expenses incurred by an appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

The grounds of appeal by the prosecutor Kim Jin of the plaintiff performer are examined.

1. With respect to Defendant 3, it is possible to determine that the Board of Audit and Inspection orders the compensation for this case;

Unless the final and conclusive judgment was determined by other lawful procedures, the parties cannot make any assertion different from the contents of the judgment, and with respect to the above judgment, it is not necessary to protect the civil right to claim compensation for the compensation of the compensation determined by the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 1962.9.27, 62Da381, Sept. 27, 1962; 62Da381, Sept. 27, 196). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below was justified to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant 3 with the purport that the judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection was a separate opinion that the civil claim for damages can be made with respect to the case for which the Board of Audit and Inspection's decision was made.

2. According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below recognized that the plaintiff, an employer, was negligent in neglecting the duty of ordinary care in supervising the Park Young-ho's Park Jong-ho, an employee, based on legitimate evidence, and considered it in calculating damages for the defendant Song Young-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, the guarantor, and therefore, it cannot be found that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence or in incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit on the above measures. Therefore

3. Examining the evidence cited by the judgment below in light of the records, the fact that the judgment of the court below is not possible unless the tobacco price was delivered to the retailers as a witness under the witness authority and that there was a provision to the effect that there was an awareness of the fact that the tobacco price was not collected as a witness of the tobacco in the resale form, and that there was a provision to the same effect, and therefore, even if the resale price promised to distribute tobacco ex post facto to the retailers and consumed the tobacco price by receiving the advance payment from the retailer, it cannot be viewed as embezzlement of the government funds unless there was a special reason. Accordingly, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's claim for compensation for damages since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's compensation for damages.

The grounds of appeal of Park Jong-won, which is the taking over of the lawsuit by the defendant Park Jong-won, are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below found that the defendant Park Jong-won was liable for damages to the plaintiff by taking account of the legitimate evidences and finding that the plaintiff Park Jong-won was liable for damages to the plaintiff by providing the above retailer, etc. with the production beginning which was equivalent to 223,491 won 20 won prior to the total amount embezzled from each tobacco retailer, etc. as the first instance court co-defendant Park Jong-sung et al. received from the tobacco retailer, etc. in advance. The records are examined in detail and compared with each of the evidences on which the theory of lawsuit was stated, there is no reason to find that there was a mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence or a misunderstanding of legal principles in relation to the above measures in the original judgment, and therefore there is no reason to find

The Plaintiff’s tiny’s appeal on the same tinology and the appeal by Defendant Song-young by the Defendant are not indicated in the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal submitted by each party, and the appellate brief is not submitted within the statutory period.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court