Relationship between the determination of compensation by the Board of Audit and Inspection and the limit of liability of its guarantor;

The judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection under Articles 4 (1) and (3) and 31 (1) and 7 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc. shall be confirmed, and the amount of the judgment shall be determined as the amount of compensation, and the respondent shall comply with such judgment. In case of joint tort, the liability of the guarantor of the person against whom the amount of compensation is determined as the basis of the amount

Articles 31 and 36 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 4 of the Board of Audit and Inspection, Article 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

A representative under the laws of the Republic of Korea shall be appointed by the Minister of Justice of the Ministry of Justice to complete the litigation performer;

Attorney Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1479 delivered on March 27, 1975

The part of the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

(1) We examine the Defendants’ attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, who had assistant to the public official in charge of cash accounting in the divisional post office, remain in 3,227,035 won of the money to be repaid in the stable fats by embezzlement of national funds during the period stated jointly. The defendants who were the non-party 1's fidelity guarantor in the above non-party 1 are responsible for compensating for 1,60,000 won of the money in consideration of the circumstances such as the original fats. Since the compensation decision made by the Board of Audit and Inspection against the non-party 1 in the above identity was 1,554,603 won in 50 won in fats, the defense of the defendants' representative that the limit of the fidelity guarantor's liability does not exceed the amount of the judgment does not purport to

However, according to the provisions of Article 4 (1) and (3) of the Accounting Personnel Act, Article 31 (1) and Article 7 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, if the Board of Audit and Inspection fails to file a petition for review (it shall not apply to administrative litigation) which provides a basis for remedy for the determination of damages, it shall be interpreted that the amount of the judgment is determined as the amount of damages, and that the respondent shall not be in the length of the action for remedy.

In this case, the defendants, the guarantor of the non-party 1, can be recognized by the evidence No. 1-1 (Fidelity Guarantee) where there is no dispute over the establishment of the obligation to compensate jointly and severally by the principal, the defendants, the guarantor of the non-party 1, the defendant, the guarantor of the non-party 1, can be recognized by the evidence No. 1-1 (Fidelity Guarantee), and this cannot be recognized as the time when the judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection became final and conclusive in the above judgment of the Board of Audit and Inspection. According to the previous purport of the pleading, the responsibility of the defendants as the guarantor of the non-party 1, the legal principle that should be judged based on the above amount of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below, which judged as the opposite opinion, is difficult to maintain because there

(2) As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff performer:

In the judgment of the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment, there is no error of law in misunderstanding of facts, and the original judgment is not a comparative negligence in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code in the theory of lawsuit, but a liability limit is set in consideration of the circumstances of the original opinion in accordance with Article 6 of the Guarantee of Good Faith Act, and it is difficult to say that there is an error of law in the judgment.

(3) Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s appeal is with merit and without merit. The Defendants’ appeal is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)