2015Da236677 Agreements

A person shall be appointed.

1. Chungcheongbuk-do B;

2. C.

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2004867 Decided August 18, 2015

March 10, 2016

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant Chungcheongbuk-do shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

Defendant C’s appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal by Defendant C are assessed against the above Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant C, who is a public official of the defendant Chungcheongbuk-do B (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant B") under his/her jurisdiction, inflicted damage on the plaintiff by gross negligence in connection with his/her execution of duties, and that the defendant C is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount agreed upon on his/her performance of duties on January 12, 201 and 26. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of disposal documents and expression of intent

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal No. 3

A. The lower court partially cited the reasoning of the first instance judgment; ① the Plaintiff was a person who completed the registration of credit business; Defendant C was in charge of agricultural support-related business from 209 to 100, and Defendant B promoted the rice processing plant construction support business (hereinafter referred to as “the instant business”) to promote consumption by fostering rice industry; and, as part of the Defendant B’s request, the head of the 0-year government office (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party 1”)’s loan-related business with Defendant 2’s loan-related business with Defendant 1’s loan-related business with Defendant 1’s loan-related business with Defendant 0, 200, 200, 700, 000, 700, 000, 000, 70, 000, 120, 20, 200, 30, 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 2,011.

Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that: (a) Defendant C’s act was closely related to the act of performing its duties as a public official in charge of the subsidy program of this case when it was known that the transfer of this case’s subsidy claim would be prohibited by virtue of its purpose and nature; (b) Defendant C did not perform its duty to verify whether it is possible to transfer the subsidy claim of this case; and (c) Defendant C’s act of sealing his seal on the following is not a private economic entity but a public official in charge of the project as the head of the agricultural support and distribution team of the Defendant B, in view of the fact that it appears that it was difficult to recognize that Defendant C’s act was not a public official in charge of the project of this case’s duty, but a public official in charge of the project of this case’s work as a public official in charge of the project of this case’s work, and that it was not a “the Plaintiff’s act of signing and sealing the subsidy claim of this case’s government or his duty as a public official in charge of the agricultural distribution program of this case’s.”

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court as it is. (1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed. (A) The F, who worked in the office of the lending company office of the Plaintiff’s operation, was requested for the loan from the non-party company E, the representative director of the non-party company, called the Defendant B-gun’s agricultural support and office around June 201, and asked G, who received the above phone, about whether the Defendant B-gun is running a subsidy business in relation to the non-party company, and whether the transfer of the instant subsidy claim is possible, etc., and G responded to the purport that the Defendant B-V plans to pay the non-party company the subsidy, but it is not possible to transfer the subsidy claim, and that the subsidy cannot be a security for money borrowed.

B) On June 25, 2011, Defendant C received a report from G about whether he/she could transfer or take over the instant subsidy claim with respect to the Nonparty Company’s subsidy business.

C) When the F delivers G’s answer to E, E means that “E is not well aware of the fact that the upper line was mard with the upper line. Ma, the head of the team of the department in charge of the subsidy project, accompanied with the head of the team in charge, and visited and check the office directly.”

D) On June 26, 2011, Defendant C, along with E and his wife H, went to Seoul, and told F to support the instant project that the Nonparty Company is proceeding, while disclosing F as the distribution team leader with the agricultural support department, the department in charge of the subsidy project in Defendant B, and said F to be a subsidy of Defendant B in relation to the instant project that the Nonparty Company is proceeding.

E) On June 28, 2011, F visited the Agricultural Support Service and the Office of the Military Service and met Defendant C.

F) On June 29, 2011, Defendant C received a seal from Nonparty C to the office of the non-party company located considerably away from B, and visited the office of the non-party company to the office of the non-party company and met F and the office of the certified judicial scrivener office at that place. From that place, Defendant C demanded Defendant C to affix the official seal of the B head of the Gun on the bond transfer contract, the letter of credit assignment confirmation, the letter of performance acceptance, etc. However, Defendant C refused to affix the official seal of the B head of the Gun without the official seal and to affix it. The following Defendant C affixed his personal seal on the side indicated as “B (Jurisdiction: Agricultural Support and Distribution SupportC)” at the bottom of each of the above documents. The above performance letter states that “The non-party company will borrow KRW 670,000,000 from the Plaintiff with the machinery purchase from China, and that Defendant B will not pay it directly to the Plaintiff by the machinery and/or other reasons, regardless of whether or not, by the machinery and other reasons.

G) Around that time, the Plaintiff’s loan to the Nonparty Company was made without any further verification, and thereafter, on June 29, 2011, the Plaintiff did not obtain the Plaintiff’s official seal from the Defendant B head of the Gun on his own bond transfer contract, the letter of confirmation of assignment of claims, and the letter of performance, and did not receive official confirmation on whether the said documents were properly made within a legitimate authority.

H) The Nonparty Company used most of the money borrowed from the Plaintiff for a purpose other than the purchase price of the said machinery, and the Plaintiff was unable to recover the said loan from Nonparty Company or Defendant B even after September 30, 201.

(i) A person who committed suicide on December 26, 201, and the Plaintiff, on December 26, 201, submitted a letter of commitment to the settlement of KRW 670,000,000 from Defendant C up to January 20, 201, respectively: Provided, That the amount of KRW 20,100,000 by January 10, 201 shall be deposited to the head of the Tong by December 10, 2012. “The content of the deposit received a letter of performance prepared by the Defendant under his/her personal name.”

2) The following facts revealed in light of the above facts: (i) it appears difficult to accept the subsidy granted by a local government to foster a specific project or provide financial assistance from the perspective of ordinary people as an object of the assignment of claims or as a security for pecuniary rent; (ii) in this sense, F who vicariously provided or represented the Plaintiff was confirmed by telephone to Defendant B; (iii) the answer that the instant subsidy from G cannot be an object of the assignment of claims or a security for pecuniary rent; and (ii) the Defendant C, who is a public official, refuses not only to prepare a bond transfer contract, a final letter of assignment of claims, a written statement of performance, and an official seal of the head of the Gun on June 29, 201, but also to affix the official seal of the head of the Gun; and (iv) it is considerably different from the ordinary method of the performance of duties of public officials, and thus, it can be seen as an exceptional case in light of the empirical rule, and thus, even if any person can be suspected of paying the subsidy within the period of granting authority.

6. The statement of 29. The defendant Eul stated that he would not pay the subsidy of this case to the plaintiff by September 30, 201, and will not be held liable for non-performance. The defendant Eul's act of not being aware of the duty of the defendant Eul's act of receiving the subsidy of this case, and that he could not be suspected that the public official's act of receiving the payment of the subsidy of this case can not be formed with legitimate authority, and the plaintiff's answer to Eul is that he did not know that this case's act of receiving the subsidy of this case was done with no knowledge that this case's act of receiving the loan of this case's work of this case's government official, although he did not know that this case's act of receiving the subsidy of this case was not legitimate, it would be difficult to view that the plaintiff's act of not being aware of the duty of the defendant Eul's act of receiving the subsidy of this case's government official's loan of this case's case's act of not being known to the defendant Eul's act of receiving the subsidy of this case's work.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the part against Defendant B among the judgment below against Defendant B is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Defendant C’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by Defendant C are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jae-han