손해배상(기)
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's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following contents between the 10th and the 5th and the 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Parts] (4) Any administrative disposition may be evaluated as illegal as a result.
Even if an administrative disposition has been revoked in an appeal litigation after the lapse of res judicata, it cannot be determined that the administrative disposition was directly caused by the intention or negligence of the public official and constitutes a tort, and it is reasonable to view that the public official in charge of the administrative disposition satisfies the requirements for State compensation liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act to the extent that it is recognized that the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy by violating the duty of objective care when considering the public official’s standard.
Whether an objective legitimacy has been lost should be determined by whether there is a substantial reason to require the State or a local government to bear the liability for compensation for damage in full view of various circumstances, such as the form and purpose of an administrative disposition that constitutes an infringement, the victim's involvement, the degree of involvement, the type of infringed benefit, and the degree of damage.
Furthermore, in a specific case, where the criteria for a series of procedures for an administrative disposition are established within the administrative agency, if the administrative disposition was taken in accordance with the criteria, it cannot be said that the public official involved in it was negligent in performing his/her duties.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da247486 Decided August 30, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da247486, Aug. 30, 2016). However, the pertinent provision of the instant Rule (6-D-2) does not simply stipulate that “where evidence of the astronomical hepatitis has been verified from a radiation testing and has been diagnosed as dysical spine salt” should be evaluated as class 5.