손해배상(일부청구)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.
3...
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance cited in the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) B is the disposition of the head of Seongbuk-gu Office suspending the payment of disability pensions (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
(2) Since Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act violates the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and the principle of proportionality and the principle of protection of trust, the Defendant is liable for damages against the Plaintiff. (2) In addition, the public official belonging to the Defendant neglected his/her duty to investigate the chronic renal failure in B, and to take measures to ensure that B continues to receive the disability pension, and there exists causation between the suspension of disability pension and the death of B
B. In order to establish the liability for damages of the State or a local government with respect to an administrative disposition regarding the occurrence of the Defendant’s liability for damages due to the illegality of the instant disposition 1, the public official in charge of the administrative disposition must have intention or negligence in performing his/her duties. The existence of negligence of the public official should be determined based
In addition, even if any administrative disposition is based on a wrong statutory interpretation, it cannot be determined that the administrative disposition was immediately caused by the intention or negligence of the public official and constitutes a tort, and it is reasonable to deem that the administrative disposition has satisfied the requirements for liability for damages to the extent that it is recognized that the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy by violating the objective duty of care.
At this time, whether or not the objective legitimacy has been lost shall be comprehensively considered various circumstances, such as the form and purpose of administrative disposition, whether or not the victim's involvement is involved, the degree of involvement, the type of infringed benefit and the degree of damage.