구상금
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
(a) Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, when a public official has intentionally or negligently inflicted damage on another person in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes while performing his/her duties, the State or local governments shall be liable to compensate for such damage (paragraph (1)), and when the State, etc. has performed his/her responsibilities, he
(2) The provisions of subsection (2) are specified.
In such cases, the State or local governments may exercise the right to indemnity within the extent deemed reasonable in light of the good faith principle from the perspective of fair sharing of damages, in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the duty contents of the relevant public official, the situation of illegal acts, the degree of contribution of the relevant public official on the occurrence of damages, degree of ordinary work attitude, degree of consideration of the State or local governments on the prevention of illegal
(1) The State’s refusal to perform its obligation is considerably unfair or unfair in the event that the State made it difficult for the State to exercise its right or extinctive prescription prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, or there are special circumstances, such as where the State made it considerably difficult for the State to exercise its right or extinctive prescription, or there exists an obstacle to objectively exercising its right, even if the extinctive prescription has expired, the State’s assertion for the expiration of the extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of right against the principle of good faith.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da36091, Oct. 13, 2011). As can be seen, the extinctive prescription period for a victim’s claim for State compensation by a public official’s unlawful act has expired, but the State’s claim for the completion of extinctive prescription is permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle