(a) The issuance of checks by the divisional receipt and disbursement officer containing the duties of issuing national treasury checks is within the conduct of official duties, even if there is no cause for payment;

B. If the assignee of the check fails to receive the check from time to time in order to secure payment of the check, it can be deemed that the damage was caused thereby.

(a) If the issuance of the check by the divisional receipt and disbursement officer in charge of the duties of issuing the national treasury checks is not a cause for payment, it shall belong to the execution of duties;

B. If the assignee of the check for securing payment of the check did not receive the check from time to time, it can be deemed that the damage was caused.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 390 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1166 delivered on September 20, 1966

Park Sang-chul (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Attorney Yang Sung-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2472 delivered on March 23, 1967

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant 1’s Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the purport of the original judgment, the original judgment can be deemed to have recognized the liability for damages as an employer with respect to the illegal acts of the non-party who is an employee of the defendant, so there is no other opinion that criticizes the original judgment.

The second ground for appeal is examined as follows:

Although Nonparty 1, the officer in charge of receipt and disbursement of the division in charge of the duties of issuing the National Treasury check, Nonparty 1, the officer in charge of receipt and disbursement, did not receive the check, Nonparty 1, the officer in charge of the duty of issuing the National Treasury check, deeming the act of issuing the National Treasury check to be an appearance of the act of issuing the National Treasury check and thereby causing damage to a third party due to the issuance of the check, cannot be viewed as a violation of the theory of lawsuit in the judgment of the court below, which held that the non-party 1, the officer in charge of the division in charge of the duty of issuing the National Treasury check, was liable for damages incurred to the third party in connection with his duties, and the plaintiff taken over the check for securing the payment of the book from Nonparty 2, the representative of the Seoul Central Book and then the plaintiff had the right to claim the book against the non-party 2 even if the plaintiff did not receive the check, it can be deemed that the plaintiff had caused the damage to the plaintiff (see the judgment of the court below, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 196Da108.

We examine whether the plaintiff's incidental appeal is legitimate;

The incidental appeal shall be made within the time limit for the submission of the appellate brief, and the incidental appeal shall be filed within that time period, and the reasons therefor shall be submitted. According to the records (Supreme Court Decision 68Da825 delivered on September 17, 1968, and 68Da825 delivered on September 17, 1968), the incidental appeal shall be filed on July 24, 1968, and it shall be filed on May 15, 1967 after 20 days from the date on which the notice of receipt of the appellate brief was served on the appellant, and the incidental appeal shall not be dismissed.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is groundless, and the plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Round (Presiding Judge) Kim Gi-gim and Hongnam Table