2012 grouped 6614 Compensation, etc. (as a result)

100

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Bocheon-gun

Head of the Gun

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

February 13, 2015

April 24, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from August 22, 2008 to April 24, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 4/5 shall be borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant's claims and claims of this case against the plaintiff 70,000,000 won and their claims from August 22, 2008.

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of service of the application for change in the cause of the claim:

D. The amount of money calculated at the rate is paid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A was appointed as a public official on January 17, 1997, and worked in the Defendant’s civil petition division until September 9, 2012, and was in charge of the inspection of the results of cadastral survey, the adjustment of cadastral records, and the issuance of related civil petition documents, and thereafter, he was released from his position on September 25, 2012 while serving as a public official of class VII of local facilities in the Defendant’s financial division.

B. A had been considered to have incurred a loss while investing in stocks from around 1997, he/she acquired money under the name of the Defendant by forging the relevant documents by using the fact that he/she is a public official. A, even though he/she did not have the intent or ability to get out of the river site, on August 22, 2008, transferred money to the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s civil petition office and office of the Ycheon-gun Office to the Gyeongcheon-do Office and to the Yancheon-do Office. If he/she invests 100,000,000 won in public land, he/she would be 0,000,000 transfer to the Do Office, and then obtain 0,000,000 won out of the river site in the Ycheon-gun, Seocheon-gun-gun, Ycheon-gun-gun, 00,000 won to the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s public service center *** the account number of the Plaintiff *** the - the account in the above name of the public land.

C. On March 7, 2013, the Daegu District Court rendered a sentence of eight-year imprisonment to A on the grounds of deception, etc., and sentenced A and the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. However, on June 20, 2013, the Daegu High Court (number omitted) dismissed all of the appeals on June 20, 2013. The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 to 7 evidence (including number), Eul 1, 3, and 4 (including number)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff;

A who is a public official belonging to the defendant committed a tort by deceiving the plaintiff while performing his duties and neglecting the land owned by the defendant, and during that process, he committed a tort by neglecting the management of the accounts, etc. of the case by violating the provisions related to B, C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as "B, etc.") who is a public official belonging to the defendant, thereby aiding and abetting A or neglecting it. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the public official belonging to the defendant's tort (the plaintiff seems to have claimed both the defendant's liability for damages caused by deception and the defendant's liability for damages under the State Compensation Act due to the negligence in managing the accounts, etc. of the case of Yecheon Military, such as B, etc.).

However, the plaintiff considers the defendant's liability to be 70% in accordance with the principle of fairness, and demands the defendant to pay the amount as stated in the claim.

B. Defendant (1)’s tort is an act that has no relation to A’s official duty, and it cannot be seen as an act that falls within the scope of A’s official duty, and the Defendant is not liable for damages with respect to A’s tort. Even if the duty relationship is recognized with respect to A’s act, the Plaintiff was well aware of, or did not know, that the act does not fall within the scope of the duty. As such, the Defendant is not liable for damages with respect to A’s tort. (2) In relation to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant, a public official of Defendant B, etc. did not perform his duty under the relevant provisions, unless there is a duty relationship, the Plaintiff’s trust, which made transactions with A based on such appearance, cannot be protected, and even if it was objectively and externally acknowledged as a negligence due to B, etc., the Defendant cannot be held liable for damages with respect to the Defendant on the ground that there was no reasonable causal relation between B, etc. and the Defendant’s gross negligence, etc., without having known that it did not fall within the scope of the duty.

3. Determination

A. The State or a local government shall compensate for damages in accordance with the State Compensation Act when a public official intentionally or negligently causes damage to another person in violation of the statutes (main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act). The term "in performing his/her duties" includes the act of a public official directly or closely related to the act of a public official, and when determining the act, the act itself must be objectively observed and viewed as a public official's act. Although it is not a substantial act or there is no subjective intention as a person to perform his/her duties, the act should be seen as "in performing his/her duties" (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da26805 delivered on January 14, 2005, etc.).

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged in full view of the evidence as seen earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above facts and evidence Nos. 9 (including branch numbers), 5 through 8, and the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as follows: ① a public official belonging to the Defendant’s general civil petition at the time of the act of deceptionation, who is in charge of the inspection of cadastral records, the inspection of cadastral records, the adjustment of cadastral records, and the issuance of related civil petition documents; in the case of issuance of civil petition via telephone and the Internet, the fee was transferred to the instant preliminary military account in the name of the Defendant; during that process, the fee was actually allowed to use the instant preliminary military account by access to the account of the Ycheon-gun; and ② it appears that the instant preliminary military account was actually managed with

Although there was no capacity or intent to make public land owned by the Defendant, at the Defendant’s general civil petition office and office in the Ycheon-gun Office of Yancheon-gun, the Plaintiff, using the public official belonging to the Defendant, was required to check the site directly to the Plaintiff at least 100,000,000 won, and thereafter, if the Plaintiff invested 100,000,000 won in the Do government office, the relocation of the Do government office would be completed, and 310-1 out of the river site in the Do government office in the Seocheon-gun-gun, Seocheon-gun-gun-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, the Plaintiff would be required to receive 310,00 won from the Do government office. The Plaintiff received 10,000,000 won from the Do government office in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Do government office, rather than other accounts, and it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s act of transfer to the Do government office.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages incurred by the plaintiff due to Gap's illegal act, which is a public official belonging to the defendant under the State Compensation Act (as long as the defendant is liable for damages under the State Compensation Act against Gap's illegal act, the defendant's liability for damages against the management negligence of the Yecheon-gun's account, etc. is not separately examined under the State Compensation Act). (3) The defendant's assertion that the above act of Gap was sufficiently known to, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, that it was not a performance of duty as a public official belonging to the defendant, was not performed as a public official belonging to the defendant.

B. Scope of liability for damages

In cases where local governments are liable for damages due to public officials' illegal acts, if they have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages, it conforms to the principle of fairness to limit the liability for damages under the State Compensation Act of local governments in consideration of the victim's negligence in determining the scope of liability.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the following circumstances are as follows: ① A was not at a position to be in charge of the non-performance of public land; even if A is assumed to be a person in charge of the affairs related to B, no official authority exists to reject public land without going through the legal procedure; ② The Plaintiff also did not know about the duties and duties of A, the procedures for non-performance of public land, the reasonable market price, and other related matters; and ② the Plaintiff believed A’s horses only and remitted money to the account of the Ycheon-gun, the amount of damages suffered by the Defendant is limited to 50% of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case.

Therefore, from August 22, 2008, 2008, which is the date of this decision, it seems reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff 50,000,000 won ( = 100,000,000 x 5) and from August 22, 2008, the date of this decision, which is the date of this decision, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until April 24, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Criteria for Judges