[1] Details and proximate causal relation of a public official’s breach of duty required to establish the State’s liability for compensation

[2] The purport of allowing the preparation of a specification of goods for sale in an auction procedure

[3] The obligation to be borne by the executing court for the preparation of a specification of the goods sold

[4] In a case where a court of execution or a public official in charge of auction violated official duties on the preparation of a specification of goods sold, whether the State is liable for compensation (affirmative)

[1] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 105 of the Civil Execution Act / [4] Article 105 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62747 decided Dec. 27, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 112) / [2] Supreme Court Order 2004Ma94 dated Nov. 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 65)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na38364 Delivered on December 6, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If the contents of a public official’s duty imposed on a public official are not merely for the public interest or for the purpose of protecting the safety and interests of an individual of the members of the society, but entirely or incidentally for the purpose of regulating the order inside the administrative agency, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the public official’s breach of such duty to the extent that proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the State shall comprehensively take into account not only the probability of the occurrence of a result, but also the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and other rules of conduct imposing the duty on a public official, circumstances after the act foreseeable from the purpose or function of the duty to perform, and the degree of injury (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62747, Dec. 27

Article 105 of the Civil Execution Act provides that a court of execution shall prepare a detailed statement of the subject matter of sale and keep the current status of the subject matter of sale in the auction procedure and keep it in a copy of the current status of the report and the assessment statement so that anyone can be seen by the court. The purpose of the above provision is to prevent anyone from causing unexpected damages by accurately grasping the current status of the subject matter of sale in the auction procedure to make the current status of the subject matter of sale and disclosure of rights and relationships (see Supreme Court Order 2004Ma94, Nov. 9, 2004). Therefore, if it is difficult for the court of execution to accurately grasp the current status and relationship of the subject matter of sale due to the characteristics of the auction procedure or the limitations of functions and duties of the court of execution, etc., a public official of the court of execution shall be liable to compensate for damages arising from the purchaser's own decision by stating that the current status and relationship of rights and duties of the subject matter of sale are unclear, and if it is difficult for the purchaser to accurately understand the subject matter of sale.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, a mutual savings bank, one of the following facts: (a) the court of execution applied for a blanket auction of the land of this case and the building of this case as 2028 on the basis of the right to collateral security on the land of this case; (b) the building of this case was composed of 9 households; (c) only 3 households have made a demand for distribution during the above auction procedure; and (d) six pieces of chonsegwon not demand for distribution are not extinguished due to the sale of the real estate of this case, the court of execution did not request the Nonparty to sell the real estate at the 0th day before the date of the fourth sale; (b) the court of execution did not request the Nonparty to sell the real estate at the 0th day after the first sale of the right to collateral security on the real estate of this case, and only the Nonparty did not have the right to request sale on the 10th day after the date of sale; and (c) the Plaintiff did not request the court of execution to sell the real estate at the 1st day of sale.3rd auction.

Under this factual basis, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the violation of the duty of a public official in charge of auction, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da31837 delivered on Nov. 13, 1998) since the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the violation of the duty of a public official in charge of auction, etc., on the ground that the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused to the plaintiff by the violation of the duty of a public official in charge of auction (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da31837 delivered on Nov. 13, 1998).

In addition, even if the plaintiff was aware that the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, which did not demand a distribution, was not cancelled if the plaintiff was aware of the relevant laws and regulations and detailed review of the copy of the register of the land and the building of this case, in light of the purport that the Civil Execution Act prepared and kept a detailed statement of goods to be sold and made them available to applicants for purchase, it shall not be deemed that the above circumstance alone is exempt from the defendant's liability for damages, or that the causal link between the violation of duties by the public official in charge of auction and the plaintiff's damages is severed.

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s price determination was affected solely on the ground that the purchaser stated in the column for “the obligation to take over” in the specification of the object to be sold on October 7, 2003 as “the creation of a first priority right to lease on a deposit basis that is not cancelled,” and its reasoning is somewhat insufficient. However, it is justifiable in its conclusion that recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages. As such, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defects in the preparation of the specification of the object to be sold or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on State

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)