(a) Acts of public officials in the course of performing their duties and liability for damages;

(b) Whether a civil lawsuit can be immediately instituted against an accounting-related employee's liability for compensation;

(c) Responsibility of the guarantor of an employee in charge of accounting;

(a) Even in case where the State or a public organization suffers a property damage due to the lawful act of the public official, such public official shall not be held liable for damages arising from a tort under the Civil Act;

(b) An official in charge of accounting shall not be held liable for any breach of his duty by reason of a civil action without recourse to the Board of Audit and Inspection’s decision of compensation.

(c) The fidelity guarantor's liability of an accounting-related employee shall be determined on the basis of the amount determined by the Board of Audit and Inspection of the employee who is the guarantor.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Consolidated Officer General of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 31 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da651 Decided November 19, 1968, 71Da2050 Decided November 23, 1971, decided 75Da385 Decided December 9, 1975, decided 77Da7888 Decided March 22, 1977

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea is abuse of gambling by the Minister of Justice, leap-Nam

Defendant 1 and two others, Attorneys Noh Jeong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na1292 delivered on November 16, 1979

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Defendant 1 is a public official in charge of the receipt and disbursement of cash in the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office, and Nonparty 1 is his superior and cash officer under the direction and supervision of Defendant 1, who is the cash accounting official of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the defendant 1, who is obligated to directly keep and use postal savings money and the cash accounting official of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office.

However, when the state or public organization suffers direct property damage due to the previous official acts of the public official, it shall be interpreted that it separates cases prescribed by the Secretary General, the Commodity Management Act, etc., and that it shall not be liable for damages arising from illegal acts under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da651, Nov. 19, 1968). In full view of each of the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6, and Article 31 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Article 31 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, the liability for damages arising from the violation of the duties of the accounting-related personnel shall not be held liable for damages arising from the civil action without the compensation decision by the Board of Audit and Inspection (see Supreme Court Decisions 71Da2050, Nov. 23, 1971; 75Da385, Dec. 9, 1975).

Therefore, in this case where Defendant 1 is claiming compensation for damages caused by negligence in the course of performing his duties as a cash accounting official, it is clear that the above act of the defendant is an act of official duty (inaction) established in accordance with the original judgment, and therefore, the above act of the defendant cannot be held liable for tort under the Civil Act against the above act of the above defendant. However, the liability for compensation is an accounting-related employee who cannot be subject to civil action without the compensation decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and there is no dispute as to that of the defendant, and the court below did not have yet to accept the plaintiff's claim against the same defendant. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for action, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. In addition, in light of the above established facts in the original judgment, the Red Jae contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, the guarantor, who is the defendant 1, is liable for compensation of the defendant 1, and it shall not be held liable for compensation in accordance with the order of the Board of Audit and Inspection.

This paper is reasonable.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Sap-ho (Presiding Justice) Man-ho (Presiding Justice)