A. The meaning of "a person who bears the salary, salary, or other expenses of a public official" under Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act

(b) Whether the head of a local government is liable for any State administrative affairs entrusted by an agency, if he/she processes such affairs, as a person bearing the expenses under Article 6 (1) of the same Act;

(a) "The salaries, salaries, and other expenses of a public official" under Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act means all the expenses necessary for the affairs in question, not exclusively refer to the personnel expenses of the public official, and at least those expenses are included in a person who bears such expenses even if the person is not a substantial and extreme contributor to the expenses.

B. According to Article 131 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198), Article 132 of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of Apr. 6, 198), Article 16 (2) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of Apr. 6, 198), and Article 18 (2) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of Apr. 6, 198), where the head of a local government handles the state administrative affairs delegated by an agency, the local government is liable to compensate for damages under the same Act due to a public official’s unlawful act, even if the local government is the State.

Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 131 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of April 6, 198), Article 132 of the current Local Finance Act, Article 16 (2) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of April 6, 198), and Article 18 (2) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of April 6, 198)

Jinsung Transportation Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seocho-si Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na4203 delivered on July 12, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below did not completely determine whether the plaintiff operated the company as a direct management system, and whether the disposition to reduce the number of vehicles in this case is an illegal disposition. Thus, there is no ground for holding that the judgment of the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that the license and cancellation of automobile transport business are national administrative affairs under the control of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, which are conducted by the Minister of Construction and Transportation and are conducted in the status of a state administrative agency, not the head of the local government, which is re-entrusted by the Do governor delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and thus, the YU has been conducted in the status of a state administrative agency, not the head of the local government. Therefore, if the disposition is unlawful and unjust, the plaintiff can seek damages from the country to which the disposal agency belongs, and it is not related to the business of this case.

However, Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act provides that where the State or a local government is liable for damages under Articles 2 and 3 of the same Act, a person who is responsible for the appointment and supervision of a public official and a person who is responsible for the salaries, salaries, or other expenses of a public official are not the same, the person who bears the expenses shall be liable for damages. "the salaries, salaries, and other expenses of the public officials" under Article 6 (1) of the same Act means all the expenses necessary for the relevant affairs, not only the personnel expenses of the public officials. At least the public official shall be included in the cost cost actually and ultimately, even if the public official is not the person who bears the cost actually and ultimately, it shall be included in the person who bears the cost. Article 131 of the former Local Autonomy Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4004, Apr. 6, 198; hereinafter referred to as "the former Local Government Act") provides that the State or the local government shall bear the whole expenses entrusted to the local government as its own expenses (Article 168 (16) of the current Local Government Act).

Therefore, according to this case, even if the above reduction of the number of vehicles and the individual transport business license disposition are national administrative affairs re-entrusted to the mayor of Yongan City, and thus, the expenses required for the above administrative affairs have been disbursed at the market of the defendant. Thus, if the Yan City Mayor committed an illegal act as alleged by the plaintiff in the course of handling the above affairs, if the Yan City Mayor committed such an act as alleged by the plaintiff, the Yan City is responsible for compensating for damages. Therefore, the court below should have further judged whether the Yan City has committed an illegal act as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court below should have judged that the Yan City has not been liable for damages under the State Compensation Act, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act and Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act, on the ground that the above administrative affairs are national administrative affairs.

In addition, in order to ask the State or local governments for the liability for damages caused by the illegal acts of public officials, the procedure under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act should be followed. However, even after examining the record, the examination of whether the court below had gone through the above procedure cannot be seen as a trace of the examination. Thus, the judgment of the court below is also illegal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)