logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1970. 11. 24. 선고 70다2140 판결
[대여금][집18(3)민,315]
Main Issues

The case holding that it is insufficient to view that the act of assuming the above liability of a high school partner was objectively a type of external performance of official duties solely on the basis of the fact that the high school member opened current account transactions in the name of the position of the expenditure officer in charge of advance payment and issued the per unit by means

Summary of Judgment

In the event that the divisional officer of a high school borrowed bonds with interest of the fifth of a month and issued the check of the number of shares on the date in the name of the position of the "pre-paid expenditure officer", the divisional expenditure officer of a high school is not sufficient to deem that his/her debt obligations are objectively externally complete in the performance of official duties, inasmuch as it is evident that the local government is unable to borrow bonds at a higher interest rate of the fifth of a month or issue and issue the check of the number of shares on the date of the pre-paid in order to secure the bonds, unless it is evident that the local government has no authority to do so.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff, Defendant

Anmari and four others

Defendant-Appellant

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3538 delivered on September 2, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3538 delivered on September 2, 1970

Text

The part of the original judgment against the defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal No. 201, 201.

According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1 was ordered by the superintendent of Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education as the divisional revenue source and the divisional expenditure source of Seoul Industrial High School, and from that point of time, he was in charge of budget execution such as the issuance of national checks from the above school, and the non-party 1 was in charge of the non-party 1's work. The non-party 1, who was conducting current account transaction with the title "the application for prohibition of transfer" of the Seoul Industrial High School until January 28, 1963, was introduced by the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was under the current account transaction with the title "the non-party 1, 1963", "the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, who was in charge of the duty of the plaintiff 2, the non-party 1, and the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the plaintiff 1, were entitled to the government checks.

However, according to the Local Finance Act, if the head of a local government (including the Board of Education and the head of a district office of education; hereinafter the same shall apply) intends to enter into a contract which is the cause of bearing obligations of the local government other than the amount carried forward or the total continuing expenses within the scope of the above Acts and subordinate statutes or municipal ordinances, he shall go through a resolution of the local council in advance (Article 8 of the same Act). The head of a local government shall obtain a resolution of the local council for each fiscal year (Article 10 of the Act on Temporary Measures for Local Autonomy) and paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Administration of Seoul, which requires approval of the Prime Minister (Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Collection of Local Governments). According to the above reasoning that the head of a local government's act of incurring obligations of the local government is not an act of incurring obligations of the non-party and the disbursement officer of the local government is not an act of removing obligations of the non-party or the disbursement officer of the local government, the court shall have no authority to permit the disbursement of the Seoul High High High School.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon

arrow