[1] Whether only the fact that a certain administrative disposition was revoked in an appeal litigation after the pertinent administrative disposition can be determined immediately by the public official’s intentional or negligent act and constitutes a tort (negative), and in such a case, the requirements for establishing State liability and the criteria for determining the State liability

[2] The case denying the State's liability for damages on the ground that it was revoked in an administrative appeal or administrative litigation after the revocation of the permission for reclamation, but there was no negligence in performing the duty of objective care for the public official

[3] In a case where the head of a Gun or his subordinate public official causes damage to others by intention or negligence in the course of granting the permission for the reclamation, which is the State affairs re-entrusted from the head of the Do through the Governor, and performing the revocation affairs, pursuant to Article 61(2) of the former Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act and Article 61(1) of

[1] Even if a certain administrative disposition has been cancelled in an appeal litigation after the judgment of res judicata, it cannot be determined that the pertinent administrative disposition was caused by a public official's intentional or negligent act and constitutes a tort. In light of the public official's standard, it is reasonable to deem that the public official in charge of such administrative disposition met the requirements for State compensation liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act in a case where it is recognized that the administrative disposition was lost objectively justifiable due to lack of objective duty of care. In such a case, whether the administrative disposition lost objective legitimacy should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the type and nature of gains of infringement, the form and reason of the administrative disposition infringing, the victim's involvement in the exercise of the administrative disposition, and the degree of damages.

[2] The case denying the State's liability for damages on the ground that the disposition of revocation of the reclamation license was revoked in an administrative appeal or administrative litigation, but the public official in charge was not negligent in performing his duty in an objective manner.

[3] Under Articles 24 and 27 of the former Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, Act No. 4823 of December 22, 1994), the affairs of permission for reclamation and cancellation of permission for reclamation stipulated as state affairs under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries are delegated to the Do Governor pursuant to Article 61 (1) of the same Act and Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Since the Do Governor re-entrusts the head of a local government who is the head of a local government pursuant to Article 61 (2) of the same Act, the head of a Gun is delegated the delegated affairs. In such a case, even if a public official assisting the head of a Gun intentionally or negligently causes damage to another person in the status of an administrative agency under the jurisdiction of the State, the Gun is not liable for State compensation, and the State is liable for damages together with the State, if the Gun bears expenses under Article 6 of the State Compensation Act.

[1] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 29 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 29 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 24 and Article 27 (1) 3 of the former Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, Act No. 4823 of December 22, 1994) / [3] Articles 2 and 6 of the State Compensation Act, Articles 24, 27, 61 (1) and (2) of the former Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, Act No. 4823 of December 22, 1994), Article 37 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development Act, etc.)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da30540 delivered on November 15, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 4), Supreme Court Decision 97Da7608 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2487), Supreme Court Decision 98Da30285 delivered on March 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 728), Supreme Court Decision 96Da53413 delivered on September 17, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2166) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Da2131 delivered on November 8, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3543), Supreme Court Decision 190Da10301 delivered on June 19, 199 (Gong196Ha, 3543), Supreme Court Decision 200Da130194 delivered on June 19, 1992

[Judgment of the court below]

Chang-gun

Jeonju District Court Decision 9895 delivered on November 5, 1999

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held on March 27, 1989 that the head of the 2nd Gun rendered a favorable judgment of the defendant 1, 300 square meters for the above 9th 2nd Gun's above illegal act, and that the 19th Gun's 2nd Gun's 9th Gun's 9th Gun's 19th Gun's 19th Gun's 2th Gun's 19th Gun's 2th Gun's 19th Gun's 2th Gun's 9th Gun's 196th Gun's 2th Gun's 9th Gun's 196th Gun's 2th Gun's 196th Gun's 196th Gun's 196th Gun's 196th Gun's 196th Gun's 19th Do's 196th Do.

B. However, even if a certain administrative disposition has been revoked in an appeal litigation after the appeal is filed, it cannot be determined that the pertinent administrative disposition is a tort due to a public official's intentional or negligent negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da53413, Sept. 17, 199). In a case where a public official in charge of such administrative disposition is recognized to have lost objective legitimacy by neglecting objective duty of care as a general public official, it is reasonable to deem that the public official in charge of such administrative disposition satisfied the requirements for State compensation under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act in a case where it is recognized that such administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy. In this case, whether the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy should be determined by the determination on whether there is a substantial reason to assume the responsibility for compensating for damages to the State or local government, taking into account all the circumstances such as the type and nature of the gains from infringement, the form and cause of the administrative disposition infringing upon, the victim's involvement in the exercise of the administrative disposition, the degree of damages, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da302855, Mar. 23, 19

However, according to the facts established by the court below and the records of this case, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal for the first time with the head of the 2000 Gun's first time to revoke the permission, and the second time to obtain authorization for the completion of the above construction work after the completion of the construction work. The second time to revoke the permission for the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the effect that the second time to revoke the permission for the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the effect that the second time to revoke the permission for the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the effect that the second time to the second time to the effect that the second time to revoke the permission for the second time to the second time to the second time to the second time to the effect that the second time to the effect that the second time to revoke the permission for the second time to the second time to the second time to the effect that the second time to the second time to the effect that the second time to the cancellation was not completed.

Article 27 (1) 3 of the Act provides that "when the conditions of permission are violated," the period of completion of the reclamation project according to the first permission has not less than one year and six months. As seen above, despite the second permission of the head of Si/Gun, the period of completion of the reclamation project according to the second permission has expired, and the first and the second development project has not been completed within the period specified in the second permission even after the expiration of the period specified in the second permission, and the first and the second development project has not been completed, the excess of the deadline specified in the above completion of the construction shall be deemed to fall under "when the head of Si/Gun violates the conditions of permission" stipulated in Article 27 (1) 3 of the Act in accordance with the Ordinance on the Delegation of Affairs to Eup/Myeon, which ordered the first cancellation of the permission to the head of 00 Do, and the first cancellation was made by the head of the first and second administrative litigation, and the second cancellation was again made in accordance with the purpose of the judgment on the grounds of illegality in the procedure of the first cancellation.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that each of the dispositions of this case was revoked in an administrative appeal or administrative litigation without delay, and that each of the dispositions of this case was an intentional act or at least negligent act in the performance of official duties of the public officials belonging to the defendant, and that the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff, shall not be held to have failed to exhaust all the deliberations, or there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements for establishing liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

C. Meanwhile, under Articles 24 and 27 of the Act, the affairs of permission for reclamation and cancellation of permission for reclamation, which are stipulated as the state affairs under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, are delegated to the Do Governor pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Act and Article 37(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the head of the Gun re-entrusts the head of the local government who is the subordinate head from the Do Governor pursuant to Article 61(2) of the Act. In such a case, the head of the Gun merely deals with the affairs in the position of the administrative agency under the jurisdiction of the State, which is the subject to the jurisdiction of the head of the Gun. Thus, even if the public official of the Gun assisting the head of the Gun intentionally or negligently inflicted damages on others in the course of performing the affairs delegated to him, in principle, the defendant is not liable to compensate for the damages, and the State is liable to compensate for the damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da21331, Jun. 25, 1999>

Therefore, although it is not revealed first whether or not the defendant is the person who bears the burden under Article 6 of the State Compensation Act, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages arising from each of the dispositions of this case. However, the court below pointed out that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cause of the State compensation liability, or in the incomplete deliberation, because each of the dispositions of this case is an intentional or negligent act committed by the public officials in charge of the Gun or the defendant's official belonging to the defendant.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

As seen in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, as long as the Defendant cannot be deemed to bear the State liability due to the revocation of each disposition of this case, it is evident that the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal premised on the Defendant’s liability for damages under the State Compensation Act cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)