[1] Whether not only loss, theft, but also loss of possession by deception, etc. is included in the meaning of "place of loss" under Article 4 (2) of the former Consolidated Officer Act (affirmative)

[2] 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] With regard to the meaning of "nets" as stipulated in Article 4 (2) of the former Specialist Officer of the Military Service (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 2001), legal terms should be interpreted most reasonable considering the literal meaning, legislative purport, relationship with other Acts, etc. The meaning of "nets" itself should be included not only in the case of loss of the party's possession, such as theft or theft, but also in the case of loss of the party's possession, in light of the legislative history as stipulated in Article 4 (2) of the former Specialist Officer of the Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 6461 of Apr. 7, 2001).

[2] The liability for compensation of a public official 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, and is different from the liability for compensation of a public official under the State Compensation Act. Thus, the principle of limitation on the liability for compensation of a public official under the State Compensation Act is applied mutatis mutandis, so the amount of compensation cannot be reduced by analogy. Unless there is a provision that reduce the amount of compensation in consideration of the circumstances of the former officer's position itself, the amount of compensation itself shall not be reduced

[1] Article 4 (1) and (2) of the former Diplomatic Officer(amended by Act No. 6461 of April 7, 2001) / [2] Article 4 of the former Diplomatic Officer(amended by Act No. 6461 of April 7, 2001)

[Judgment of the court below]

Board of Audit

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu8259 delivered on March 22, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the first proposal

The court below held that the legal language should be interpreted as being most reasonable in comprehensive consideration of the language and meaning, legislative intent, relationship with other Acts, etc., and that the legal language should be interpreted as "net" itself, the meaning of the provision of Article 29 (1) 2 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 38 of the Postal Service Act, Article 23 of the Postal Service Act, and Article 23 of the Postal Service Act, and Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Management of Military Supplies should be included not only in the case of loss of the plaintiff, but also in the case of loss of the defendant's legal intent, such as theft, in light of the legislative history of such person's liability for compensation as stipulated in Article 4 (1) of the 2 of the Act, but also in the case of loss of the defendant's legal intent, including loss of the defendant's duty of due care by fraudulent means, such as acquisition and disbursement of cash or other goods on the basis of the subject of responsibility compared to paragraph (2) of the 2 of the same Article.

In comparison with the facts of this case according to the evidence of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence or the liability for damages under Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act, which erroneously interpreted the meaning of "loss" under Article 4 (2) of the Act.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the second proposal

The plaintiff's assertion that the amount of compensation should be reduced by applying the principle of limitation of the liability for compensation to public officials under the State Compensation Act by applying mutatis mutandis the principle of limitation of the liability for compensation to public officials under the State Compensation Act, taking into account the fact that the plaintiff takes charge of the affairs of this case without sufficient job training in advance, the plaintiff's duties are excessive, the plaintiff's ordinary duty attitude, and the plaintiff's continuous fraudulent act was discovered during several years. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the liability for compensation to public officials under the Act is to make the accounting officials who perform the accounting strictly responsible for such liability different from other public officials, and it is not possible to reduce the amount of compensation by applying the principle of the State Compensation Act to the principle of limitation on the liability for compensation to public officials under the State Compensation Act, since there is a difference between the public official's liability for compensation and

In light of the relevant laws and regulations, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reduction of compensation amount.

The judgment contained in the appellate brief is not appropriate to be invoked in this case, unlike the case.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)