(a) Where a dispute arises in the statutory interpretation and the result of the interpretation and the processing that has been issued according to one of the opinions is found to be improper execution, whether the relevant public official's negligence is recognized as a matter of duty;

(b) The case denying the occupational negligence of the Minister of Labor, where a rejection of a trade union establishment report according to the practice is found to be unlawful only through the Supreme Court decision;

A. In general, if a public official takes a wrong administrative disposition due to a lack of knowledge or necessary knowledge of the relevant laws and regulations, he/she shall not be deemed to be a public official, not a legal expert. However, even if the interpretation of the laws and regulations itself is not clear and its text alone, so that there are many opinions as to the interpretation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and if it is impossible for him/her to raise any doubt due to lack of significance, such as precedents, theories, precedents, etc., the relevant public official's own discretion and discretion in finding reasonable grounds, and thus, he/she goes back to a wrong interpretation, and as a result, it is difficult to expect that a public official will faithfully be a public official, who is not a legal expert, and even in such a case, the negligence of the public official under the State Compensation Act cannot be acknowledged.

B. The case denying the negligence of the Minister of Labor in the course of performing his duties, where it is found to be unlawful only through the Supreme Court decision.

(b)Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 13 and Article 14 of the Trade Union Act;

Supreme Court Decision 72Da2583 delivered on October 10, 1973 (Gong1995Ha, 2762 delivered on August 22, 1992) 80Da1598 delivered on August 25, 1981 (Gong1981, 1429) (Gong1434 delivered on July 24, 1984) (Gong1984, 1434 delivered on July 14, 1995) 93Da16819 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2762)

Attorney Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na5706 delivered on June 2, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

In general, if a public official fails to know relevant laws and regulations or misjudgments administrative dispositions due to lack of necessary knowledge in performing his/her duties, he/she shall not be deemed to be a public official, not a legal expert. However, if the interpretation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes itself is not clear, and there are many opinions, such as precedents, theories, judicial precedents, etc., so that there is no doubt, the public official concerned can find reasonable grounds for the establishment of a labor union, and thereby return to the wrong interpretation after the Supreme Court's interpretation has taken place in accordance with one opinion, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to expect that the above administrative disposition would be unfair enforcement of the law, even if it would be difficult to expect that the public official will be bona fide, and therefore, the negligence of the public official under the State Compensation Act would not be recognized until the above case is established by the Ministry of Labor, and the court below's interpretation of the above administrative disposition guidelines to establish an associated with the establishment and management of an federation of labor union cannot be seen as an unlawful administrative disposition based on the title of the labor union and its practice.

In the end, the decision of the court below that the return of the trade union establishment report of this case is not recognized by negligence is correct, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)