A. The meaning of "assistant" defined as one kind of accounting personnel in Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Consolidated Officer General Act

(b) Whether the Board of Audit and Inspection has a binding act;

C. Determination criteria as to whether Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Certified Public Officials Act constitutes "serious negligence" defined as a requirement for accounting personnel's liability for compensation

A. Whether the assistant of the person provided in subparagraphs 1 through 3, who is an assistant of the person provided in subparagraphs 4 of Article 2 of the Office of Certified Public Officials Act, who deals with part of the accounting affairs, shall not be determined depending on whether the person works in the same department in the organization, but by the substance of the affairs. Thus, the person provided in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 2 of the same Act, who is directly in charge of the accounting affairs, must be naturally required to deal with the accounting affairs, shall be deemed to fall under the person who performs part of the basic activities under his responsibility and judgment according to Acts and subordinate statutes or the regulations of the organization.

B. The Board of Audit and Inspection’s determination on compensation is clearly stipulated in Article 4 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, etc., and it should be a binding act which does not allow the agency’s discretion. Therefore, there is no room for a problem of deviation from and abuse of discretion in the determination.

C. In light of the purpose of the Act stipulated in Article 1 and the fact that Article 3 of the same Act provides for the duty of loyalty of accounting personnel, as one of the requirements that are premised on the responsibility of accounting personnel, etc., whether the case constitutes "serious negligence" as stipulated in Article 4 (1) of the Local Accounting Officer Act shall be determined by whether the degree of violation of the duty of good faith can be judged as important in light of the contents of the duty, or not, by failing to comply with the provisions stipulated in the Acts and subordinate statutes, other relevant regulations and budget to be followed by the accounting personnel in performing their duties, or by whether the contents of the duties are of high functional and managerial character or of mechanical and actual nature.

(a) Article 2 subparag. 4(b) of the Certified Judicial Officer General; Article 4(b) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act Article 31(1)(c) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act Article 1 and Article 3

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2 and five others, Plaintiffs Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Ansan-Gyeong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu8946 delivered on November 12, 1992

1. The plaintiff 1's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the same plaintiff.

2. The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. We examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

(a) On the first ground for appeal:

The issue of whether a person referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 3, who is an assistant to the person referred to in subparagraphs 4 of Article 2, who deals with part of the accounting affairs, who is an assistant to the person referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 3, shall not be determined depending on whether the person works in the same department in the organization, but shall be determined by the substance of the relevant affairs. Thus, a person who is directly in charge of the accounting affairs, as provided in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 2, who is naturally required to perform the relevant accounting affairs, shall be deemed to fall under the category of a person who handles part of the basic activities under his responsibility

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff 1 is an assistant under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Office of Finance Officer, who is an accounting officer, in the position of assisting the affairs of the resolution of compensation expenditure by the Director of the Office of Finance and Economy, by determining the eligibility of compensation expenditure and the amount of compensation under his own responsibility and judgment, who is a working person in charge of the affairs of compensation for expropriation of land and ground property in accordance with the construction business under the jurisdiction of the Construction Bureau of Incheon Metropolitan City and Incheon Metropolitan City. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of accounting

(b) On the second ground for appeal:

According to the records, the court below's findings of fact and the preparation of documents related to the payment of compensation, such as the time of plaintiff 1's original adjudication, as a working-level person in charge of the land expropriation compensation business of Incheon Metropolitan City and Incheon Metropolitan City, are justified and the reasoning of the court below's reasoning that the act of preparing documents related to the payment of compensation constitutes a case where the accounting personnel committed gross negligence as a matter of law, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for liability for compensation, or in the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation

(c) On the third ground for appeal:

The Board of Audit and Inspection's decision on compensation is clearly stipulated in Article 4 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, and it should be called a binding act which does not allow the agency's discretion. Therefore, there is no room for problems of deviation from discretion and abuse of discretion about the decision.

The court below recognized the plaintiff 1's liability for compensation, and judged that the defendant's compensation liability is not illegal, such as deviation from discretion, etc. in the decision of compensation or retrial. Although the above decision of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, it is correct to reject the plaintiff's assertion of deviation from discretion, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

In light of the purpose of Article 1 of the Act and Article 3 of the same Act, which stipulate the duty of loyalty of accounting personnel as stipulated in the Acts and subordinate statutes and other relevant regulations and budget to be followed by the accounting personnel in performing their duties, the degree of violation of the duty of good faith should be determined by whether or not the degree of violation of the duty of good faith can be judged as important in light of the contents of the duties, and the contents of the duties are not simply functional, managerial or mechanical or factual character.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the deceased non-party 1 was in the position of supervising the whole business area of the 1,2, and 3 parts belonging to the Dong department while working as the chief of the Construction Bureau of Incheon Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City. The 3,426 square meters of the 38-25 square meters located in the Seogdong, Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the land of this case, are subject to donation in approving the housing construction project plan in the Incheon Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City, and the compensation for the above land should not be paid in the Incheon Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City. However, although the Do governor non-party 2 received a bribe from the land owner and requested the payment of compensation, the Do governor non-party 1, who is the working-level of the compensation work, failed to prepare false compensation documents by adding the land of this case to the land list to the land list to which the compensation work is to be incorporated, the deceased non-party 1, who is not the director in charge of the above construction division, and did not examine the relevant documents and did not recognize it.

However, even according to the facts duly established by the court below, although the deceased non-party 1 is in the position of supervising the entire land expropriation compensation work as the head of Incheon Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City, he believed non-party 2, the person in charge of the draft compensation, and approved the relevant documents without closely examining the documents related to the payment of compensation. Furthermore, according to Eul evidence No. 8 (written request for appraisal of the amount of compensation), Eul evidence No. 9-1 (written request for appraisal of the amount of compensation), and 2 (request for compensation), the land in this case is transferred to the Corporation for the Construction of the Seopo-gu Access Road, and its location is completely different from the other land in the Bopo-gu, and the area and amount of compensation are more than that of the other land, it is not inconsistent with the location of the Bopo-gu, and it is unreasonable to view that the land in this case was not the one subject of the competent local government's duty of due care at the time when the deceased non-party 1 approves the land in this case's case's land expropriation.

Nevertheless, the court below found that the deceased non-party 1 did not closely examine the documents related to compensation to the deceased non-party 1, but held that since the deceased non-party 1 is different from the working person in the position of supervisor with high functional and managerial character, such a degree of mechanical and factual errors cannot be deemed as a case of gross negligence. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 4 or in the violation of the rules of evidence, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, Plaintiff 1’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. The judgment below against the remaining plaintiffs is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)