The case holding that accounting officials do not constitute gross negligence

The case holding that the accounting-related employee's request for the appraisal of land did not state that it is a de facto private road on the appraisal request because he did not verify the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the date and contents of the determination of urban planning facilities which served as the basis for the road construction project, and that it is found that the accounting-related employee did not err in determining the amount of compensation as it is, even after he received an assessment report evaluated that the land is not a de facto private road unlike other neighboring lands, but did not closely compare and review it again, but it does not constitute a gross negligence in the process of dealing with the accounting-related employee's affairs, on the basis of the result that he asked the public works and accounting-related employee about the basis for the determination of urban planning facilities in the process of requesting the appraisal of the land, on the basis of the result that he asked the public works and accounting-related employee about the determination of urban planning facilities. In order to confirm whether it is a de facto private road at the time of inquiring of the appraiser, it did not constitute a de facto private road under Article 6-2 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Land.

Articles 3, 4(1), 6-2(3), and 6-2(3) of the Regulations on the Punishment of Public Loss.

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu98 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 507) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9764 delivered on March 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1758)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Board of Audit

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu8923 delivered on August 29, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not state that the plaintiffs 1 did not properly confirm the date and contents of the determination of urban planning facilities which served as the basis of the road construction project, and did not state that the land in this case was de facto private road. Further, although the plaintiffs were found to have erred in determining the amount of compensation without thoroughly comparing and reviewing it even after they received an assessment report which is evaluated as not a de facto private road unlike other neighboring land, the court below did not err in finding that the compensation process for the land in this case and the appraisal request for the land in this case were about the basis of the determination of urban planning facilities by the public works and the officials in charge of civil affairs as of January 18, 1969. Based on the above, the court below's determination that the land in this case did not constitute a "private road" under Article 6-2 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act of the Compensation for Loss Prevention and Compensation for Public Works (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule"), and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the actual relation between the appraisal and the land in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)