Responsibility of divisional accounting officials for compensation;

If the accounting officer did not cause damage to the state's property because he/she committed an illegal accounting act intentionally or by gross negligence, he/she shall not be held liable for compensation pursuant to Article 4 of the Assistant Officer General.

Article 4

Plaintiff

Board of Audit

The decision of retrial that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's request for retrial on April 22, 1969 by the Supreme Court Decision No. 69 dated April 22, 196.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

On September 17, 1968, the Defendant received a claim for reimbursement of KRW 1,343.952 from the 1968 military forces for the above 1,34,000 from the above 190 military forces, and the Plaintiff later received a claim for reimbursement of KRW 1,343.92 from the 194 military forces for the above 1,000 military forces. The Plaintiff received a request for reimbursement of KRW 1,347,00,000 from the 1,000 military forces for the above 1,50,000,000,000 from the 1,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

However, the plaintiff's 1,390 emergency medical service on the 1,390 emergency medical service did not leave the military according to the order of the non-party 2's order, and the above military service did not cause property damage to the State because it was received from the Yeongdeungpo-gu branch, so the above compensation judgment against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be unlawful, and therefore the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's request for reexamination of the above compensation judgment on the ground that the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's request for reexamination on the above compensation judgment cannot be ruled to be dismissed as unlawful. Accordingly, the defendant's rejection of the above compensation judgment on the 1,390 emergency medical service against the provisions of Article 12 (2) of the Act on the Management of Military Supplies, and there is no evidence that the above compensation judgment on the 1,390 emergency medical service against the non-party 1 does not violate the provisions of Article 12 (2) of the Act on the Management of Military Supplies, and therefore,

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 without dispute in its establishment and the testimony of non-party 1 by the witness, it is recognized that the non-party 1 in charge of accounts of the goods in charge of the goods in charge of the part of the 9 soldiers' distribution and maintenance shop for the 9 soldiers in the land area was put into the 1,390 military unit of the 1,390 military unit of the 1,390 military unit of the 1,390 military unit of the 1,390 military unit of the above military unit was put into the 1,390 military unit of the 1,390 military unit of the above military unit.

However, if it is recognized that accounting officials are liable for damages under Article 4 of the Consolidated Officer General of the Board of Audit and Inspection, it should be the case where they caused damage to the state's property by making an act as above, as seen above, not only the illegal accounting act due to intentional or gross negligence but also the case where the plaintiff's act is considered as an act that meets the above first requirement. However, in this case where it is recognized that there is no damage to the state's property as above, it is a separate issue that the plaintiff is not liable for the failure to recover the militaryization of this case, and at least the compensation liability under Article 4 of the above Act cannot be held.

Therefore, the above compensation award against the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be unlawful, and as such, the determination of re-deliberation of the instant case, which did not accept the Plaintiff’s request for re-deliberation that did not correct the illegal compensation award, is also unlawful, and thus, it shall not be dismissed.

Therefore, without making a decision on the remaining points, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the judgment of the retrial of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jung-so (Presiding Judge)