[1] The case holding that the administrative affairs related to the performance of the "statement for financial support" issued by the local government for the land-sale company in the agricultural industrial zone constitute the accounting affairs of the property manager and his assistant under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b), subparagraph 1 (h), and subparagraph 4 of the former Assistant Officers' Office

[2] Criteria for determining whether a case constitutes "serious negligence", which is a requirement for liability for compensation under Article 4 (1) of the former Penal Officer General

[3] Whether the amount of accounting personnel's liability for compensation under the former Act on the Performance of Legal Officers can be reduced (negative)

[1] The case holding that administrative affairs related to the performance of a letter of funding issued by a local government for a business entity expected to occupy the land within the agricultural-public zone, which is the public property of a local government, fall under the accounting affairs of a property manager and his assistant under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b), (h), (h), and (4) of the former Local Officers' Officers' Office (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 201)

[2] As one of the requirements premised on the responsibility of accounting officials, etc., whether the case falls under the case of gross negligence stipulated in Article 4 (1) of the former Assistant Officer General of the Office of Certified Public Officials (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 2001) (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 201) shall be determined according to whether the degree of violation of the duty of good faith can be judged as significant in light of the contents of the duty, by failing to comply with Acts and subordinate statutes and other relevant regulations and budget to be followed by the accounting personnel in performing their duties, in light of the purpose stipulated in Articles 1 and 3 of the same Act and the duty of good faith of the accounting personnel, etc.

[3] The liability for compensation under the former Certified Public Accountant Officer (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 2001) is to impose a strict liability on accounting personnel who perform accounting affairs, unlike other public officials. Thus, it is different from the liability for compensation of public officials under the State Compensation Act. Thus, the principle of limitation on the liability for compensation should not be applied by analogy of the principle of limitation. Unless there is a provision that reduce the amount of compensation in consideration of the circumstances of the same Act itself, the amount of compensation itself shall not be reduced unless there is a provision that reduce the amount of compensation.

[1] Articles 72 and 73 of the Local Finance Act, Article 78 (1) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16983 of Oct. 20, 200), Article 2 subparagraph 1 (h), 2 (b), and 4 of the former Local Finance Officers Act (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 2001) / [2] Article 4 (1) of the former Local Finance Officers (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 2001) / [3] Article 4 (1) of the former Local Finance Officers Act (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 2001)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 99Du5498 decided Feb. 23, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 780) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6562 decided Nov. 30, 2001 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3297 decided Oct. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2737)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Sami General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Young-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Board of Audit

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu15684 delivered on October 19, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records and Articles 72 and 73 of the Local Finance Act, Article 78 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, Article 1, Article 2 (2) and (3) of the Ordinance on the Creation and Management of the Gyeongnam-do Urban Development District, Article 2 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Ordinance, and Article 2 (2) 4 of the same Ordinance, the affairs related to the performance of the 1st City regional economic director and the director of the division of the local economy and the director of the division of the division of the 2nd City City's public property are performed in the status of the property manager of the land in the 2nd City's public property and his assistant (the 1st City's financial support plan issued for the company expected to move into the land in the 1st City's public property zone). Since the affairs related to the performance of the 1nd City's affairs are to make the company scheduled to move into the land easily raise funds necessary for the purchase of the land, the affairs are incidental to the sales contract for the agricultural land.

The decision of the court below is just in holding that the plaintiffs' business constitutes the accounting affairs as provided by the Act on Liability for Documents, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the accounting personnel executing the accounting affairs as provided by Article 2 of the Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The issue of whether accounting personnel or others' liability constitutes a case of gross negligence stipulated in Article 4(1) of the Act as one of the elements premised on such liability shall be determined according to whether the degree of violation of the duty of good faith can be determined as serious in light of the contents of the duty, by failing to comply with the provisions prescribed in the Acts and subordinate statutes, other relevant regulations and budget to be followed by the accounting personnel in performing their duties, in light of the purpose stipulated in Article 1 of the Act and the duty of good faith of the accounting personnel stipulated in Article 3 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu98 delivered on December 13, 1994). It does not simply be determined by whether the contents of the duties are highly functional, managerial or mechanical and factual character (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu98 delivered on December 13, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below issued a letter of funding to the Korea Comprehensive Technology Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Comprehensive Technology Finance Corporation") on April 9, 1990 after the first market price No. 1 had entered into a provisional contract on the sale of the factory sites within the second agricultural and industrial complexes between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is a 40-year Water Accounting Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party 1") and the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1, to the extent of damages caused by the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, the non-party 2,868.

Furthermore, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning with regard to the grounds and purport of issuing a letter of funding to the enterprises scheduled to move into the second agricultural and industrial complex, the plaintiffs' duties in charge, the timing of leaving the office, the degree of understanding the business affairs, and the custody of the issuance file, etc., and found that the first market was known or could have been easily known when the first market was delivered to the non-party 1 when it transferred the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership to the factory site sold in lots by the non-party 1 for the purpose of financing, and that each letter was kept in the issuance file of the letter of financing.

Based on such factual basis, the court below held that the plaintiffs' liability for damages was gross negligence on the ground that the plaintiffs' failure to take measures to direct and supervise the non-party 1, who is the person in charge, to take measures in accordance with a letter of support for the transfer of ownership as well as to direct and supervise the non-party 1, who is the person in charge, and to take measures in accordance with the letter of support for the transfer of ownership in the second agricultural industrial zone No. 1, which is proposed by the non-party 1, in the process of supervising the management of the ownership transfer registration, which is an important business of transferring the property of the local government, to the chief of the competent division or the chief of the competent division.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the above legal principles, although the court below's explanation on the storage and management of a letter of benefit for financing is somewhat inappropriate, the court below's decision that recognized the plaintiffs' gross negligence is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or lack of reason due to a violation of the rules of evidence, inconsistent reasoning, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to gross negligence under Article 4 (1) of the Act on

3. On the third ground for appeal

With respect to the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no causation between the violation of the duty of care of the plaintiffs and the damage of the first time, the court below rejected the above argument on the ground that the non-party 1 did not deliver the documents necessary for the registration prior to the approval of the draft documents to the competent Doz. Even if the documents necessary for the registration and the letter of delegation for the registration were transferred to the competent Dozzinsan, even if the plaintiffs did not obtain separate approval, it is difficult to say that the approval should be obtained again even if the transfer of the documents required for the registration was made, since the documents required for the registration are included in the approval of the draft documents, and even if the non-party 1 did not follow the independent application of the special agreement and stated the special agreement in the remarks column of the application for the registration of the transfer registration, such mistake did not affect the proximate causal relation that the damage occurred in the first time due to the non-party 1's failure to perform the measures under the separate application for the registration of repurchase, and it did not contain any error that the plaintiffs failed to properly supervise the registration of the special agreement.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the responsibilities of the non-party 1 who is a working-level supervisor or supervisor cannot be the same as those of the plaintiffs, or that the full-time officer of the plaintiffs should share their responsibilities with the plaintiffs. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and decision are all acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles

In addition, the liability for compensation under the Act on the Liability for Compensation of Accounting Personnel for Accounting Affairs, unlike other public officials, is designed to make the liability strictly with respect to accounting officials who execute the accounting affairs. Since the principle of liability for compensation of public officials under the State Compensation Act differs from the basis of its formation, the amount of compensation cannot be reduced by analogical application of the principle of restriction. Unless there is no provision that the amount of compensation should be reduced in consideration of the circumstances in the Act on the Liability for Compensation itself, unless there is a provision that the amount of compensation should be reduced, the amount of compensation itself cannot be reduced (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3297, Oct. 11, 2002). The decision of the court below which did not reduce or exempt the amount of compensation against the plaintiffs is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding the legal principles as to

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)