The case holding that it does not constitute an illegal act under the State Compensation Act that a public official in charge of civil petition guidance who is not a public official in charge of competent affairs does not actively confirm the uncertainty of the contents of civil petition by a civil petitioner, and that accurate answers are not known to the public official in charge

The case holding that it does not constitute an illegal act under the State Compensation Act that a public official in charge of civil petition guidance who is not a public official in charge of competent affairs does not actively confirm the uncertainty of the civil petition contents and who gives a formal answer to the civil petitioner, and that accurate answers do not constitute an illegal

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Jin-gun and one other

Daejeon High Court Decision 99Na340 delivered on April 19, 2000

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

1. Summary of the judgment below

A. The facts established by the lower judgment are as follows.

(1) Defendant 2 is a public official of Grade 8 in the local public health service in charge of the affairs such as permission for food manufacturing and processing business and sales business, civil petition guidance and report, etc. in the sanitary world of Defendant Jin-gun, and the Plaintiff, on June 21, 1997, extended a lease agreement on the above building for two years on the premise of operating a dan from the first floor of the building located in the building located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and started repair work to use it as a danran.

(2) On July 10, 1997, Nonparty 1, as the Plaintiff’s instructions, visited the sanitary world of Defendant Jin-gun with the building management ledger and the land cadastre of the above building in order to find out whether the permission of the entertainment bar and the requirements and procedures for the permission of the entertainment bar business on July 10, 1997. However, at the time, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, who were the sanitary world of Defendant Jin-gun, were in charge of the entertainment bar permission duty, did not travel at all.

Accordingly, Defendant 2 informed Nonparty 1 of the general procedure of permission for ran tavern, asked Nonparty 1 to the place of business, and told Nonparty 1 to be the next place of ○○○○○ bus terminal, and the above Defendant should ask the person in charge of it, not the person in charge. However, if the location of ○○○ dan is the place where the permission was already granted, so it is possible to grant a license for ○ ○○ Doran bar to the place of this case. On the other hand, if he wants to know that it is correct, he made a phone number again to the person in charge of sanitary affairs, and puts Nonparty 1 with the phone number written.

(3) The Plaintiff heard the above guidance from Nonparty 1 and continued the construction of the facility to believe that it is possible to permit the instant building, while allowing Nonparty 1 to submit the documents necessary for the permission of the entertainment business to the sanitation department of Defendant Jin-gun on August 4, 1997.

Accordingly, the above non-party 3, who is a person in charge of the permission affairs, shall supplement documents insufficient to the non-party 1. On the same day, he confirmed the location of the building of this case and examined whether the above location is located in the Gun Office through the cadastral map, return to the Gun Office, and the cadastral map. The above building confirmed that the above ○○○○ and the above ○○○○○○○ were located outside the e-mail permission zone located outside the 8m wide. The above non-party 2 immediately notified the non-party 1 of the fact by telephone.

(4) During the period from July 14, 197 to September 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff invested KRW 63,450,000 in total as indicated in the facility specifications of the lower judgment, and performed the construction of facilities necessary for the business of the instant building, and provided sound and image equipment. However, without obtaining permission for the entertainment bar, the Plaintiff was under business permission for the resting restaurant in the name of Nonparty 5, a person living together with Nonparty 1, a person living together with Nonparty 1, on March 12, 1999.

B. The court below reasoned that if a public official who provides civil petitioners' answers is accurately aware of the civil petition contents and it is unclear, he has a duty of care to answer after disclosing the civil petitioner's accurately, and if the civil petitioner causes damage to the civil petitioner, he shall constitute a tort. On the basis of the above facts, Defendant 2, who is a public official of the sanitary community of the defendant Jin-gun, who is based on the above facts, was asked by the above non-party 1, etc. about how the place is away from what direction the public prosecutor's entertainment permission area, and asked the civil petitioner about how his lot number was confirmed through the cadastral map and the drawing of the entertainment permission area. In light of the above, the court below determined that the public official's failure to inform the above public official of the fact that the public official was within the permitted area, as a matter of course, if he did not know that the public official was responsible for the above public official's fault and omission of his duty to inform the non-party 1, who did not know about the internal part of his reply, it should be found that the public official's fault and omission of the permission.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

However, the above determination by the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

First, as recognized by the court below, the location of the building of this case is '○○○ Garan's business permission, and the above non-party 1 is 'side of the above Garan bar' under the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act. In light of the fact that the designation or business permission in the area may vary between the roads, it was important for the non-party 1 to provide basic facts, and even if the non-party 2 gives answers on behalf of the civil petition director, he should be asked to the person in charge of the non-party 2 as well as the person in charge of the non-party 2's opinion, it is necessary to ask the person in charge of the non-party 2's opinion that the location of the building of this case should be able to permit the business of this case based on his common sense, and if he wants to know that it is '○ ○○ Ga''s business permission, he should be able to ask the defendant 2's opinion about the above location of the building of this case, it should be confirmed within the reasonable range of response to social norms, and the plaintiff 2's opinion.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations in determining that Defendant 2 was guilty on the premise that he/she had the same duty as such, or did not perform all necessary deliberations, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on public officials’ duty of care in dealing with civil petitions, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendants’ ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)