Effects of promissory notes issued in violation of the old fiscal law and the nature of the State's liability for compensation

Promissory notes issued in violation of the Financial Act prior to the repeal, even if they are issued by the State as the subject of the private economy, in the course of conducting economic activities, are not effective.

Article 756 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Lee Dong-seop

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 60Do1888 delivered on June 22, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 2005Da1888 delivered on June 22, 196

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are as shown in the attached Table.

The First Ground for Appeal

The financial law prior to the abolition is a law concerning the basic financial and accounting of the State, which must be the standard for revenue and expenditure of the State. The state's revenue and expenditure as the subject of public authority is interpreted as a compulsory law which does not comply with all revenue and expenditure as well as the state's revenue and expenditure as the subject of management relations. The reason for its expenditure and the method of expenditure are applicable without exception. If the state conducts economic activities as the subject of simple private economy, not as the subject of public authority, the general private law under the Civil Act is applicable as in the private law, as in the case of the private person's relationship between the state and the state. However, if the state was enacted a law with the special nature of the Commercial Act to maintain the soundness of the state's financial affairs, it should be applied to the general private law within the scope of its enactment, and if it was enacted, it can not be viewed that the act of violation was a violation of the law of the State's authority to dispose of the state's property, and it cannot be viewed that it was a violation of the law of the State's bill.

On the second ground for the same reason

According to the facts pointed out by the original judgment and the purport of oral argument, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the conjunctive defendant under the State Compensation Act, but Article 2 of the State Compensation Act applies to the affirmative action due to the governing power of the State, or when the public official inflicts damages on others by intention or negligence in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, or in the exercise of public authority, it is not a provision imposing liability on the State or public organizations until the time when the original judgment acts as the subject of private economy, and it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to explain the relationship between the liability under the above provisions and the liability as the user under the Civil Act. However, since the issuance of this bill is merely a mere private economic activity, there is no room for application of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act as mentioned above, and since the issuance of this bill is not a public official of the Army special unit, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain the rights of the defendant under the State Compensation Act as a non-party 2's own account of the non-party 1 to whom the bill was issued.

Therefore, by applying Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act prior to the amendment, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-ho (Presiding Judge)