손해배상 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and this is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of some contents, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. 고치는 부분 ◎ 제1심 판결문 제11쪽 제13행의 “지방세법 시행령 제131조의 2 제1항”을 “지방세법 시행령 제131조 제1항”으로 고친다.
◎ 제1심 판결문 제12쪽 제9행부터 제13쪽 제18행까지를 아래와 같이 고친다.
Even if a judgment on a claim for damages due to a tort has been revoked later in an appeal litigation, it cannot be readily concluded that the administrative disposition itself constitutes a tort caused by a public official’s intentional or negligent act. This is because, even if an administrative agency took a certain theory before the interpretation of the relevant statute was established, which led to an illegal act, and thus, it was difficult to expect that an average public official would be faithfully responsible for the same treatment method at the time of the disposition, barring any special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the administrative disposition was due to a public official’s negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da53413, Sept. 17, 199; 200Da20731, Mar. 13, 201). Meanwhile, if a public official in charge of the administrative disposition loses objective legitimacy by failing to pay an objective duty when considering the general public official’s standard, it is reasonable to deem that the administrative disposition satisfies the requirements of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.
Whether or not the objective legitimacy has been lost is 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.