Legal Representative B

2. C

Legal Representative (Guardian) D

3. E.

4. F;

Legal Representative (Guardian) G

5. H;

Legal Representative I

6. J;

7. K;

Legal representative L, M

8. N;

Plaintiffs (Law Firm Lee & Lee LLC, Attorneys Kim Jong-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Datra (Attorney Kim Yong-han), Attorney Kim Jae-sil, Sho, and Sho-zoo, a non-legal entity

Franchisors, salt-type stations, immigrations, transmissions, and tears

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

[Defendant-Appellant]

2. New Security Forces:

3. Dynam-gun;

Defendant 2 and 3 Law Firm Gonghyeong, Counsel for defendant 2 and 3

Attorney Kim Tae-tae

Defendant 2 and 3 Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Counsel for defendant 2 and 3

2. Each claim of the plaintiff A, C, E, F, H, K, and N, and the claim of the plaintiff J against the defendant Shin Young-gun is all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs A, E, F, H, K, N, and the defendant Republic of Korea and the Newanan Army shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, the part arising between the plaintiffs C and the defendant Republic of Korea, the part arising between the plaintiffs J and the defendant Republic of Korea, and the part arising between the plaintiffs J and the defendant Newan Army shall be borne by the plaintiff J respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the plaintiffs

Plaintiff A, E, F, H, J, K, and N are located in the back of the Nananannam-gun, and Plaintiff C works without receiving wages from each salt farm located in the Pannam-gun Pannam-gun, or those who were detained by salt farm owners (hereinafter referred to as “satch owners”) and assaulted against them.

On January 28, 2014, two disabled persons who were suffering from exploitation, confinement, assault, etc. of the labor force in Q Q Q Q Q Q, were found to have been suffering from a similar incident that was practically conducted in the Japanese salt farm (hereinafter referred to as "chrone") on the ground of the case that two disabled persons were saved into the police, and the plaintiffs were saved between the end of Jan. 28, 2014 and April 201 through the control, etc. conducted by the police of the Republic of Korea and the public officials of the Ministry of Employment and Labor after the report to this media.

B. Damage status, such as the exploitation of the plaintiffs' labor force

1) Plaintiff A

A) The Plaintiff A is a salt farm operated by the salt farm located in the Danan-gun R, Jeonnam-gun, with labor developed from May 2004 to February 7, 2014.

B) Circumstances leading up to the work in the salt farm

S around May 2004, at the cross-dissected telecom with T on-line, there is no protector from the person who has no protector, intelligence is low, and there is any impediment to communication, and I introduced the plaintiff A (the 32 years old at that time) with the hearing disability of the state of delay in mental retardation even during the middle of the city where communication is obstructed, and then I would like to get the plaintiff A to pay money. Accordingly, I had induced the plaintiff to work in the salt farm and have been going to U.S.'s house.

C) Details of damages

Plaintiff A resided in S’s house from May 2004 to February 7, 2014, and worked in S’s salt farm or dry field, and did not receive wages during the said period. Moreover, when the case of salt farm was reported to the media, the Plaintiff was detained in S who attempted to conceal the crime of exploitation of labor force, etc. and his/her wife V, and was detained in the relevant officetel from February 8, 2014 to the 18th of the same month. S was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as “public confinement”), and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2014 by being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for two years from the Gwangju High Court on the same day.

2) Plaintiff C.

A) Plaintiff C is a person who has been employed from March 2, 2003, to March 4, 2014, in salt farms operated by the salt farm X located in Jeonnam-gun W.

B) Circumstances leading up to the salt farm

X, around March 2003, Y had Y’s her birth together with Seoul Station Y used the Plaintiff C, her intellectual disability Grade 3 (Intelligent Index 64, Social well-beingdo 27), which was located in the Seoul Station, to take up the labor force, using the Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff C, with weak intellectual ability, was unable to exercise the right to claim a normal wage payment.

C) Details of damages

Plaintiff C worked in X’s salt farm from March 2003 to March 4, 2014, and was not paid wages during the said period.

On December 8, 2016, salt X was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for quasi-Fraud, etc. in the Gwangju District Court's Maritime District Court's Maritime Branch, and appealed on April 25, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

3) Plaintiffs E.

A) Plaintiff E is a person who was detained in salt farms operated by salt farm A, located in south 2, from July 5, 2012 to January 24, 2014, and was subject to harsh treatment.

B) Circumstances leading up to the salt farm

On July 5, 2012, AA was aware that the Plaintiff E is a person who has been induced by “one-person who works to attract people with intellectual ability to know at a station, terminal, etc.,” and received KRW 700,000 from AB to use the Plaintiff E as a part of the human body of the salt farm, with the knowledge that it is a person who has induced the Plaintiff E to engage in a work to attract people with intellectual ability to know at a station, terminal, etc.

C) Details of damages

From July 5, 2012 to January 24, 2014, Plaintiff E worked in the salt farm of A, and was subject to intimidation on three occasions to the effect that “if she escaped only once from AA” and failed to escape, she was detained in accordance with AA for the said period, and was subject to assault and harsh treatment by AA from time to time. Maju was punished by imprisonment for three years and six months with prison labor for the crime of receiving and receiving inducedd persons at the Seoul Southern District Court on August 28, 2014, but the appeal was dismissed on March 18, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

4) Plaintiff F

A) Plaintiff F is a person with labor force from around 2010 to early 2014 from the salt farm of salt AC located in the back of the Nananannam-gun, Nanannam-gun.

B) Circumstances leading up to the work in the salt farm

The exact U entering the Plaintiff F is unclear. The Plaintiff F sent the AD box to around 2009 through 2010, and the police officers in charge of the name in the AD box who served in the AD box contact the Plaintiff’s mother AE, and the Plaintiff F left the Plaintiff F to the AC until the AE reaches U.S.. The AC had approximately five-day volume of 5 days prior to the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s request. After that, the Plaintiff F accepted it, and the Plaintiff F works in the AC’s son’s son

C) Details of damages

From 2010 to 2014, Plaintiff F worked in the Japanese Madern War, and was not paid wages during the above period. After that, Plaintiff F paid KRW 12,00,000 to Plaintiff F F’s mother AE in the name of wages in arrears in early 2014, where a salt farm case was at issue.

5) Plaintiff H

A) From August 199 to April 2006, Plaintiff H, a salt farm located in the Haan-gun, AG, and AH, and its self-employed AJ followeded the labor force from the salt farm in the 1999 to the 2006 period. As reported through media such as broadcasting and newspapers in 2006, Plaintiff H was sought, and again, Plaintiff H was a person who was deprived of the labor force in the said salt farm from March 22, 2007 to April 2014.

B) Circumstances leading up to the work in the salt farm

Plaintiff H was a person with intellectual disability Grade 3 with lack of intellectual ability, and was working in the above salt farm operated by Al and AI from August 1999 due to the fact that the case was reported through the media in 2006.

After that, the plaintiff H heard that "I will help you do work because I do not have any person," and that I will give a monthly salary of one million won." From March 22, 2007, the plaintiff H again worked in the above salt farm.

C) Details of damages

Plaintiff H worked in AI and AJ salt farms from August 1999 to April 22, 2006, from March 22, 2007 to April 2014, and did not receive wages during the said period.

On June 12, 2014, the Danju AJ was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment with prison labor for quasi-Fraud, etc. in the Manju District Court Branch of Gwangju District Court. The appeal was made on November 27, 2014, but the appeal was dismissed by the Gwangju High Court, which became final and conclusive around that time.

6) Plaintiff J

A) From February 2013 to October 2013, 2013, Plaintiff J was deprived of the labor force from the salt farm of CK located in the 0th of the Yannam-gun, Nanannam-gun. On October 1, 2013, Plaintiff J went away from the first west U, and then again took the labor force from the salt farm of CL located in the 0th of the Yannam-gun, Nannam-gun, Nannam-gun. < Amended by Act No. 11614, Dec. 1, 2013>

B) Circumstances leading up to the work in the salt farm

In order to seek work, the plaintiff J contacted with the job placement office at the time of Gwangju in order to get a job, and met with AK at the time of arrival at the office of wood passenger terminal, and work as AK's salt farm.

C) Details of damages

The content of the labor contract entered into with the Plaintiff J with the Danju AK is 700,000 won monthly wage, and only accommodation and board are provided without any wage when salt is fully produced, and the term of the contract was from February 2, 2013 to October 2013 when salt production is completed.

In addition to the fact that the salt as prescribed by the labor contract is to be paid, Plaintiff J also carried the salt into the spawn or the spawn, carrying the salt into the spawn, and the dry field work and the fishery were also carried. Plaintiff J did not provide monthly pay for the salt to Plaintiff J. Plaintiff J. On October 8, 2013, Plaintiff J was able to escape from the spawn by receiving KRW 900,000 after deducting advance payment of KRW 4,000,000 from the AD police box, and advance payment of KRW 1,00,000 from the spawn and advance payment of KRW 1,00,000,000 from the spawn.

Plaintiff J again entered U into U due to its unsound circumstances, from December 1, 2013 to March 23, 2014, and agreed to make a verbal agreement that “to pay money when salt is paid in KRW 700,000 in one month,” but the actual payment was not paid. However, while the instant case was reported to the press, Plaintiff J received a three-month payment from the wife AM of L on March 15, 2014.

7) Plaintiff K

A) The Plaintiff K was detained in salt farms operated by the salt farm AA located in the entire Z, and the Plaintiff K was employed from December 10, 2008 to January 28, 2014, and was harshly treated.

B) Circumstances leading up to the salt farm

AA around the end of November 2008, at a AO placement office located in HoposiN, the Plaintiff K, which is introduced by AP, lacks intellectual ability as Grade 2 with intellectual disability, and even though he/she is aware that he/she is a person who has induced 'explication' as described in the above paragraph (d), he/she paid 300,000 won to AP to use the Plaintiff K as a salt farm human body, and received the Plaintiff K.

C) Details of damages

From the end of November 2008 to January 28, 2014, Plaintiff K worked in the salt farm of AA, and from December 10, 2008 and under the direction of AA, Plaintiff K submitted to A a mobile phone in the name of the person who was in possession of a mobile phone to contact with the family, and was detained from December 10, 2008 to January 28, 2014 by A, after blocking the way in which Plaintiff K could communicate with the family, and was subject to assault and cruel acts from time to time by A.

8) Plaintiff N

A) Plaintiff N is a person who had the labor force secured while resolving board and lodging in a nearby container located in AR from March 1991 to March 2006 at the salt farm of the Danan AR located in the Nanannam-gun, and from February 2009 to March 2014 at the salt farm designated by AR and at the salt farm operated by AR, from February 2009 to March 201.

B) Circumstances leading up to the salt farm

On March 191, 191, Plaintiff N was proposed to work in U salt farm in the back of the Yananan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-si, Yan-si, and entered U into U.S. In U.S., Plaintiff N introduced Plaintiff N an AR from U, and Plaintiff N was working in AR’s salt farm while resolving board and lodging at AR’s neighboring residential container.

C) Details of damages

The Plaintiff N performed the work from February 2009 to March 201, 201, from the salt farm of the DR to March 2006 and from the salt farm designated by the AR to the AS restaurant operated by the AR, and from the salt farm designated by the AR, the Plaintiff N did not receive wages during the said period.

On March 21, 2010, Plaintiff N was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of attempted murder, etc. on July 10, 2014 at the GES restaurant, and the judgment was finalized around that time after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for five years from the Gwangju High Court on November 6, 2014.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 22 and each statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 8, 22 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness S and AC's testimony, witness AU's partial testimony, plaintiff J himself-Examination Results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Defendant Korea’s assertion

A) As to police officers’ duties

(1) The police officers belonging to the police box, etc. having jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' labor force development, including the plaintiffs, failed to properly grasp the facts constituting the crime, such as the exploitation of the labor force, violence, cruel treatment, etc. of the salt farm workers including the plaintiffs, which led to the following:

In addition, the plaintiffs correspond to the "missing child, etc." under the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and police officers shall promptly take necessary measures to return the missing child, etc. when they confirm their guardians. They have jointly protected the plaintiffs, or jointly assisted or aided the development of the labor force of salters without handing over them over to the head of the Gun, which is in violation of the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Accordingly, police officers, such as the AD police box, etc. who belong to the AD police station, etc., shall compensate the plaintiffs for the damages because they violated the Act on the Protection and Support of

(2) In relation to the Plaintiff C, the Dondo Police Station and the AV Police Station did not take any measures despite having known the Plaintiff X’s development of labor force against the Plaintiff C while investigating the Defendant’s human rights infringement of the salt farm and the Kim Farming Station in 2011. This is an unlawful act in itself.

With respect to the plaintiff F, the police officer assigned the plaintiff F to the Gap F, who was his mother to the Gap F, before the clerical error. The above police officer had a pro rata with the GapC to the extent that he was aware of the fact that he had a room remaining in the office of the plaintiff F, and that he was an employee to be sent to the plaintiff. The police officer did not protect the 0 pages office at the distance of one minute from the AD box, or the autonomous police officer directly adjacent to the police box, and did not leave the AD box to the AC at the distance of eight minutes from the AD box. This is an unlawful act. With respect to the plaintiff J, the police officer assigned the plaintiff J, the plaintiff J requested for rescue on August 19, 2013, without any investigation into the plaintiff J's assault, the police officer did not go to the plaintiff J, and the plaintiff J et al. did not return the plaintiff's wage to the plaintiff J and the plaintiff J et al., but did not return the problem to the plaintiff J 1, 2010.

On March 21, 2010, Plaintiff N entered the knnife in a knife by AR because it was not well a restaurant, and thereby, Plaintiff N went through a knife operation to the knife University Hospital located in Gwangju, and immediately went back to the back after discharge by AR supervised within the hospitalization period. Plaintiff N returned to the back and reported this damage to AD police box, but the police officers of AD police boxes reported that Plaintiff N would protect Plaintiff N protect Plaintiff N and move to Plaintiff N in a knife instead of investigating AR. This is an unlawful act.

B) As to the duty of labor inspector

(1) A labor inspector is a public official in charge of supervising whether working conditions are implemented under the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Labor Standards Act”), and is a judicial police officer under the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to a crime of violation of labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, including the Labor Standards Act. Thus, in a case of salt farms that occurred in the frontnam-gun, despite the legal obligation to supervise the labor of the workplace, in spite of the case of salt farms that occurred in the frontnam-gun, the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Mapo-si”) having jurisdiction over the said area did not entirely perform the supervision of the workplace of the salt farm, or even if it was performed, it constitutes a non-exercise of the authority to supervise the workplace. Accordingly, the labor inspector belonging to the Mapo-si shall compensate for the damages caused to the Plaintiffs by an intentional or negligent violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

(2) In relation to Plaintiff C, in around 201, the labor inspector of the Dondo Labor Office transferred to Plaintiff C an intelligence incident from the Dondo Police Station, and then conducted an investigation without the help of the relevant experts, even though Plaintiff C knew that Plaintiff C was a disabled person, in the process of investigating Plaintiff C as a witness, the labor inspector of the Dondo Police Station conducted the investigation without the help of the relevant experts. Although Plaintiff C was aware of the infringement of human rights, such as exploitation of labor force, etc. against Plaintiff C, a intellectual disabled person, conducted the investigation without the help of the relevant experts. However, even if Plaintiff C was found to have been aware of the infringement of human rights, he did not merely follow the delayed payment case, but did not take necessary measures such as entering the protection facility for Plaintiff C, who is a intellectual pet, or commissioning Plaintiff C to a neighboring public health center or social welfare facility, and thus, the above labor inspector’

C) On the violation of the duty of job placement agency management

The plaintiffs sent them to the job placement office by ‘one-time fluor who induces people who lack intellectual ability to know in most stations, terminals, etc.', and the job placement offices should not refuse to follow the plaintiffs in the state of lack of independent decision-making capacity as salt farm workers in the same place as in the inn. The defendant Republic of Korea carries out the job placement service, job placement service, job placement service, job placement service, or labor supply business according to Article 3 of the Employment Security Act, so the disabled persons such as the plaintiffs are sent to the job placement office by display, and the situation of sending them as salt farm workers in the state of unfair restraint of mental and physical freedom is caused by negligence to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea should compensate for the damages.

2) The assertion against the defendant Shin Young-gun

A) As to the violation of the duty to manage and supervise the place of arrival

The rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff C (hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiffs") worked in the salt farm located in U.S., and U had a line of AW landing place and AX landing place (hereinafter referred to as "the landing place in this case"). However, in the landing place of the instant landing place, they did not sell the tickets to salt farm workers, and they could go to the island only with the permission of salt farm. Fishing villages and fishery harbors stipulate the operation and management of fishery harbor facilities and delegate it to the ordinance of a local government. Pursuant to Article 4 of the Ordinance on the Management of New Military Fishery Harbors and Harbors, the new head of the Gun must guide and supervise the user organizations and users under Article 2 (4) or 5 to efficiently maintain and manage fishery harbor facilities under his/her jurisdiction.

In 0, the majority of the plaintiffs are disabled persons, and in the ticket box of this case, they did not sell the tickets to the long-term salt farm workers like the plaintiffs, which violates Article 15 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and the Protection of their Rights, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities").

Defendant Newan-gun, who has a duty to maintain the function of fishery harbor facilities and to guide and supervise the arrival of the instant vessel in order to prevent the use of discriminatory passenger ships, neglected such duty and neglected to use the discriminatory passenger ships at the arrival of the instant vessel, thereby causing damage to the said Plaintiffs by placing the said Plaintiffs in 0 pages and continuously development of the labor force by salt farm. As such, Defendant Newan-gun should compensate for such damage.

B) As to the act of a public official in charge of welfare, Article 33-2 of the Social Welfare Services Act provides that a public official in charge of welfare of a Si/Gun/Gu may ex officio apply for the provision of services to a person eligible for protection residing in his/her jurisdiction so that the person in charge of welfare of a public official may not be omitted under this Act. Article 21(2) of the National Basic Living Security Act also provides that a person in charge of the provision

0. Since a considerable number of the plaintiffs had the right to receive various benefits under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, etc., and there was no income or economic difficulty in the residence owned by salt farm without property, the above plaintiffs were entitled to receive various benefits under the National Basic Living Security Act. However, the above plaintiffs were living in U for a number of years or longer but did not receive such benefits. This is because public officials in charge of welfare of the defendant Shin-An-gun incurred damage to the above plaintiffs because they were negligent in performing their legal duties, the defendant Shinan-gun should compensate for the damages.

3) The assertion as to the defendant Jatdo-gun

Plaintiff C registered as a disabled person around 201 when he was detained in X X’s salt and forced to work. Nevertheless, the public official in charge of welfare of the disabled at PMyeon office asked Plaintiff C to find the Plaintiff and whether it is difficult to find the Plaintiff, and whether the pertinent public official in charge of welfare of the disabled was involved in the work, and did not ask Plaintiff C at all about the background leading up to the male, forced labor, and whether it was detained. Thereafter, the public official in charge of social welfare visited Plaintiff C 4 times, and confirmed that Plaintiff C was the reason leading up to the male, whether Plaintiff C was receiving wages, and whether Plaintiff C was uncertain, and this did not take measures to seek or protect Plaintiff C. This was that the public official in charge of welfare of the welfare service belonging to Defendant Fulldo-gun caused damage to Plaintiff C by neglecting his legal duty. Accordingly, Defendant Don-gun should compensate for the relevant damage.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

1) As to police officers’ duty activities

There is no fact that police officers belonging to the Defendant Republic of Korea exercised police authority significantly unreasonably. First of all, there is no 'police officers' and salt farm system' as the Plaintiffs raised suspicion. Also, it is difficult to view that police officers have the duty to participate in prevention and investigation of crimes, maintenance of public safety and order, and in labor relations, it is difficult to deem that police officers have the duty to participate in daily payment and to confirm whether to pay wages. As such, it is difficult to view that police officers have the duty to find the entire salt farm beyond guiding the payment of wages if there is a sealed wage while meeting with salters, and to confirm whether to pay wages.

In relation to the plaintiff C, the police officer knew that the plaintiff C was suffering from the exploitation of labor force.There is no evidence to view that there is no evidence.

The reason why the Plaintiff F temporarily stayed in the AD box was that there was no space for Plaintiff F to stay in the AD box, and Plaintiff F’s parents also requested the AC to protect the Plaintiff F to the AC. The reason is that Plaintiff F remains in the house of Mad AC, and that it was located in a place that is not far away from the AD box, the mere fact that Plaintiff F stayed in the AD box rather than the AD box cannot be deemed unlawful.

In relation to the plaintiff J, the plaintiff J did not report the fact of illegality actively, but it did not report it to the land. Accordingly, the police officer's attempt to send it to the land after confirming that the wages have been paid properly, and the police officer's agreement was reached at the time when the plaintiff J agreed to the plaintiff J's intention for a limited period of time, and the police officer's measure was taken only once again and according to the party's intention. Thus, the police officer's measure cannot be viewed as illegal.

2) Since it is apparent that the labor inspector’s duty regulations are not applicable to the law, the violation of the Business Regulations does not constitute a violation of the law. Even if it falls under the law, the business regulations have been conducted in accordance with the business regulations, and thus, do not violate the law. The administrative districts under the jurisdiction of the business territory of the business territory of Sejong Labor and Labor and Labor and Labor and 20,027 working places as of the end of 2013, and 134,068 workers as of the end of 2013, and one supervisory officer is in charge of 10,00 working places as of the current 20th 2013, and one supervisory officer is in charge of 2,000 working places as of the current 20,027 working places as of 188, which were merely 00.09% compared to the total working places as of 20,027, due to such administrative limitations, there is no choice but to determine the wage order of the reported business sector.

3) Control and investigation of job placement offices in a wooden area regarding a violation of the management and supervision of job placement offices is in accordance with Articles 19 and 41 of the Employment Security Act.

Defendant Republic of Korea does not have the duty of management and supervision of the Supo Market. Defendant Shin Young-chul's assertion

1) As to the violation of U’s duty of management and supervision of the landing place, the instant landing place is not designated as a fishing port pursuant to Article 17 of the Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors Act and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Ordinance on the Management of New-Military Fishery Harbors. Thus, the instant landing place does not apply to fishing villages and fishery harbors.

In addition, it is difficult for public officials in charge to ascertain that there has been discriminatory acts against the plaintiffs at the ticket office of the landing place and take corrective measures in the situation where the provision of labor by normal labor contract has been made in most salt farms. Even if the omission of the public officials in the Defendant Newan Military is recognized, there is no causal link between such omission and the violence, intimidation, exploitation of labor force, etc. by the plaintiffs.

2) With respect to the duties of public officials in charge of social welfare, at least 50 salt farms are operated on the back of the Nananannam-gun, and most kinds of salt farms are operated according to legitimate labor contracts. The welfare public officials in charge of welfare are 1,208 persons as of 2015, and there is no legal basis for ex officio verification as to whether workers enter into an employment contract and the status of forced labor, and there is no legal basis for verification as to the status of forced labor. In addition, in the absence of any legal basis for reporting the current status of employment and the payment of wages to the relevant public officials in charge of welfare, it is difficult to expect that the public officials in charge of welfare and the employees in charge of welfare apply for benefits ex officio by identifying the persons eligible for protection other than the public officials in charge of welfare

D. The assertion of the defendant Full-Aid Branch

Two welfare public officials in charge of welfare shall be responsible for the welfare of Jeonnam-do Paknam-do, as of 2015.

A total of 3,895 persons, who are public officials in charge of welfare, do not have a legal basis to verify whether workers are under employment contracts and the actual state of forced labor ex officio. In addition, in a situation where there is no legal ground for allowing salt farm workers and salt farm workers to report the employment status and the details of wage payments to the relevant public officials in charge of welfare, it is difficult to identify the persons subject to protection who do not directly request the public officials in charge of welfare, and to apply for benefits ex officio.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

1) Determination as to police officers’ occupational activities

A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

(1) Provisions

Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of and Support for Children, etc. where Public Safety and Order are maintained, the term "children, etc." means any of the following persons: 1. The police officers shall perform the following duties; 2. Protection and suppression of the people's lives, bodies, and property; 3. Guard; 4. Collection, preparation, and distribution of information on public security; 5. International cooperation with foreign government agencies and international organizations; 7. Other matters concerning public safety and order maintenance, missing children, etc.; 1. The term "children, etc." means those under 18 years of age at the time of their disappearance; 2. The term "child, etc." means children, etc. under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities; 2. The term "child, etc. missing person" means any person who has the duty to care or assistance, such as abduction, prompt or abandoned of children, etc.; 3. The term "protecting children, etc." means the guardian, etc. of children, etc.;

(2) Legal principles

When a public official inflicts damage on another person by intention or negligence in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the State shall be liable to compensate for such damage. The prevention, suppression, and investigation of a crime falls under the duties of a police official (see Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers). Since the specific contents, methods, etc. of a police official’s act are delegated to a reasonable discretion based on a police official’s professional judgment, in cases where a police official performs duties of suppression and investigation of a crime according to the judgment that it is appropriate measures within the scope of police official’s human and material capacity under specific circumstances, the purport and purpose of granting such authority to a police official, the seriousness or imminent degree of damage inflicted on the people or citizens due to the failure of a police official to take other measures, whether a police official may anticipate such result and take measures to avoid such result, it constitutes a violation of the State’s liability for compensation on the ground that a police official failed to take other measures (see Supreme Court Decision 2007; 203Da34385, Oct. 25, 2005).

In the state liability, a harmful act by a public official should be "violation of the Act and subordinate statutes", and a violation of the Act and subordinate statutes refers to not only a strict violation of the law, but also a violation of human rights such as respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of power, good faith and good faith, and respect for public order and good morals (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da22607, May 17, 2002).

B) Plaintiff C’s claim

(1) Facts of recognition

According to the facts, the above macroscopic evidence, Gap evidence, and evidence Nos. 24, 38, 41 through 46, and the purport of the whole arguments, the plaintiff C confirmed that he was disabled with intellectual disability No. 3 and without receiving wages from March 2003 to April 2014 from the salt farm operated by Jeonnam-do W, and that he was born with labor force; on June 17, 2011, after receiving an investigation intelligence report that the plaintiff C did not receive the fifth-year wage from the above salt farm, X was entrusted the fostering of the plaintiff C, and then entrusted X with the work of the plaintiff, and then received an order from the plaintiff C to the next wage and all benefits arising from the plaintiff C, the plaintiff C’s above investigation office’s order cannot be deemed to have been concluded with the labor contract of the plaintiff C et al., and the defendant C et al.’s order cannot be deemed to have been concluded with the labor contract of the plaintiff C et al., 201.

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, around June 201, police officers of the Dondo Police Station were aware of the existence of the delegation angle of this case while investigating the crimes related to the violation of human rights of salt farms and Kim Farming business in the jurisdiction around June 201. However, it seems that Plaintiff C's case was regarded as the case of delayed payment, and that Plaintiff C's case was transferred to the Dondo Labor Office and did not take

However, insofar as there is no assertion or proof on the facts that police officers knew or could have known that there was suspicion of crime, such as that the Plaintiff C was forced to work in return for five years other than that that the Plaintiff C was not paid wages, or was detained or assaulted, that police officers were aware of the fact that the Plaintiff C was guilty of having committed a crime, it was written out that the Plaintiff C’s father would not claim for the payment of the childcare consignment to X. In addition to the fact that the Plaintiff C was unable to receive wages for five years, specific measures against Daehan around 201.

It is difficult to deem that the failure to take action is manifestly unreasonable by losing objective legitimacy. Therefore, Plaintiff C’s assertion is without merit.

C) Plaintiff F’s claim

(1) Facts of recognition

Under the facts and the overall purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff F was found to have worked for the plaintiff F with wage delay in U in 200 to 2010. The police officers in charge of the name failure to have worked for the plaintiff F after meeting the identity of the plaintiff F, and contact the plaintiff F with the plaintiff F with the plaintiff F, and the plaintiff F is in need of time for the first week to U, and the defendant F is entrusted to the Dam-AC. The AD police box did not have a place to protect the plaintiff F, since the space was narrow, and there was no place to protect the plaintiff F. AC had the plaintiff F. The plaintiff F. The plaintiff F. 2 was found to have worked for the plaintiff F. The plaintiff F. 1 and the plaintiff F. The plaintiff F. 1 and the plaintiff F. 2 were found to have worked for the plaintiff F. The plaintiff F. 1 and the plaintiff F. 2 were found to have worked for the plaintiff F. 1 and the plaintiff F. The plaintiff F. 2 was found to have worked for the plaintiff F.

(2) Determination

The Plaintiff F, who was found to have a police officer under the name of the police box belonging to the AD police box, in relation to the payment of wages in 2010, did not in itself leave the Plaintiff F to the ADC prior to his her her her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’

Unless otherwise alleged and proved, it is difficult to view that the act of police officer's duty is unlawful solely on the basis of the fact that a public official knew or could have known that a crime was committed by a public official AC against Plaintiff F.

D) Plaintiff J’s claim

(1) Facts of recognition

기초사실, 위 거시증거와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고 J는 0면에 위치한 염주 AK의 염전에서 2013. 2.경부터 2013. 10. 초순경까지 일하였는데, 당시 근로계약의 내용은 '월급은 700,000원이며 소금을 안 낼 때에는 임금을 주지 않고 오직 숙식만 제공하며, 계약기간은 2013. 2.부터 소금생산이 끝나는 2013. 10.말까지'였던 사실, 원고 J는 근로계약으로 정한 소금을 내는 일 이외에도 소금을 포대에 집어넣는 포장작업이나 차에 싣는 상차작업도 하였으며, 밭일과 어업도 한 사실, AK은 원고 J에게 소금을 내고 나면 돈을 주겠다고 하면서 임금을 주지 않은 사실, 원고 J는 2013. 3말경 제1차 탈출을 시도하였으나 인근 염주가 AK에게 원고 J의 소재를 알려주어 실패하였고, 2013. 4. 말 혹은 5.초순경에도 제2차 탈출을 시도하였으나 주민이 AK에게 원고 J의 소재를 알려주어 실패한 사실, 원고 J는 2013. 8. 19. 03시경 제3차 탈출을 하여 AD 파출소에 가서 도움을 요청하였으나 경찰공무원이 '지금은 밤이니까 옆에 있는 방범사무실에서 자고 다음 날 이야기하자'고 말하여 그 다음날인 2013. 8. 20. 06시경 AD파출소에 가서 파출소 밖으로 나오는 경찰공무원 AU에게 '염주에게 맞으며 일하고 있으며, 힘들어서 섬 밖으로 나가고 싶다'는 이야기를 하였음에도 경찰공무원 AU는 원고 J에게 방범사무실에서 기다리라고 말한 후 운동을 갔고, 원고 J가 방범사무실에서 혼자 기다리는 동안 경찰공무원 AU의 연락을 받은 염주 AK이 방범사무실로 찾아 온 사실, AK은 원고 J에게 '염전에서 소금 낼 때까지만 일을 더 도와 달라'고 하였고 원고 J는 이에 동의하여 경찰공무원 AU 앞에서도 같은 취지로 진술하였는데, 위와 같이 경찰공무원에게 계속 근로의 의사를 표현할 당시 AK도 그 자리에 있었던 사실, 원고 J는 2013. 10. 8. 03시경 제4차 탈출을 하여 AD 파출소에 가서 파출소 밖에서 잠을 자면서 파출소가 열기를 기다린 다음 처음으로 파출소 밖으로 나오는 경찰공무원 AU에게 '섬 밖으로 나가고 싶다'는 요청을 하였으나, 경찰공무원 AU는 원고 J에게 방범사무실에서 기다리라고 말한 후 파출소 문을 잠그고 운동을 갔고, 그 후 30분 정도 경과한 후 염주 AK이 방범사무실에 혼자 있는 원고 J를 찾아온 사실, 원고 J는 AK과 함께 집에 돌아가 일을 한 후 그 다음날 오전에 배를 타고 U를 나갔으며, 나갈 당시 AK으로부터 합의금 4,000,000원 중 가불금 2,100,000원과 선불금 1,000,000원을 공제한 900,000원을 지급받은 사실이 인정되고, 원고 J가 2013. 8. 19. 무렵 제3차 탈출을 하여 AD파출소에 도움을 요청하였을 때 염주에게 맞았다는 취지의 말은 하지 않았다는 증인 AU의 증언은 믿기 어렵다(증인 AU의 증언에 의하더라도 원고 J가 새벽에 찾아와, 임금을 못받고 일하고 있으며 일이 힘들어 육지로 나가고 싶다고 하였다는 것인데, 이런 상황에서 염주 AK을 파출소로 불러 위 원고와 단둘이 만나도록 하고 결국 위 원고가 염전으로 돌아가게 된 사정에 비추어 보면 AU는 위 원고보다는 염주의 편의를 봐주는 태도를 취하고 있었음을 알 수 있는 점, 이 법원이 2017. 1. 31. 피고 대한민국에 대하여 문서제출명령을 하였음에도 피고 대한민국은 AU를 비롯하여 2014. 2.경 AD 파출소에 근무하고 있었던 경찰공무원들에 대한 불문경고, 직권경고 등 처분의 기초가 된 조사자료, 구체적인 처분사유가 적힌 문서를 끝내 제출하지 않은 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 증인 AU의 증언보다는 원고 J 본인신문결과가 더 신빙성이 있다).

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, although the police officer of the AD police officer called "I would like to escape from U" as the police box at the new wall time that the plaintiff J reached, the police officer of the AD police officer called "I would like to contact IK and go to the police box or the crime prevention office of the plaintiff J, and let I see AK and the plaintiff J by using the police box on the ground of the movement. In general, in case the victim living together with the perpetrator is not only under awareness and awareness, but also when the victim files a report or aid, it should be careful to let the perpetrator go to the victim and go to the same space without the victim's consent. In particular, in this case, the police officer did not have any special reason to believe that I would go to go to do so for a campaign, and there is no other argument that I would be any violation of the laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea, and therefore, the police officer's act of interference with the duty of the defendant, such as the defendant's act of interference with the duty of the police officer, etc., and therefore there is no objective justification.

(3) The other party who lives without family or relative relationship in the calculation of consolation money seems to have been aware of the police officer's request for assistance with respect to unlawful acts, such as assault by the Plaintiff J, etc. In addition, the police officer in receipt of a request for assistance from the Plaintiff J, who went out of the Madern War, would have been able to take the box of the Plaintiff J, instead of investigating whether the Plaintiff J has protected the intellectual ability and committed a Madern-based illegal act. Rather, the police officer in receipt of a request for assistance from the Plaintiff J, who was going out of the Madern-based War, would eventually go back to the Plaintiff Jdern-based. Accordingly, it appears that the Plaintiff J might have suffered a harsh and confrutal in the face of the Madon. In addition, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the argument in the instant case, such as the background leading up to escape at the Plaintiff J's salt War, the influence of the police officer's act on the escape failure of duty, the situation and result of the so-called Madern-based case, determine the amount of the Plaintiff J.

(1) Facts of recognition

According to the facts, the above macroscopic evidence and the purport of the oral argument, Plaintiff N from March 191 to March 2006, Plaintiff N served from February 2009 to March 201, 200, and from the salt farm designated by AR operated by AR to March 21, 2014. Plaintiff N did not receive wages during the above period. Plaintiff N put knife the lower part of AR with the main knife on March 21, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “instant murder”), on the ground that Plaintiff N was disscopic at the above AS restaurant and the lower part of the oral argument, and was hospitalized at the former University Hospital located in Gwangju (hereinafter referred to as “the instant murder”), and immediately returned to AR after being discharged from the hospital located in Gwangju, and it was recognized that Plaintiff N was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for up to 20 years for attempted murder, etc. at any time after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for up to 2014 years.

(2) Determination

Plaintiff N, after the discharge at the hospital, found the AD police box and reported the police officer with respect to the attempted murder of this case. However, the police officer asserted that Plaintiff N would not take any measure but take the AR and deliver it to Plaintiff N., but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff N’s claim for damages is rejected.

F) As to the plaintiffs' other arguments

(1) Facts of recognition

According to the facts, the above macroscopic evidence, and the purport of the whole arguments, in the case of the Yannam-gun Pream (hereinafter referred to as the "area of this case"), the disabled or the homeless, such as the plaintiffs, are forced to be placed in salt farms, are not paid wages, and are not left from the island.

It is recognized that there were salters who used violence, etc., and police officers having jurisdiction over the area of this case did not properly grasp the above facts constituting the crime against salt farm workers, including the Plaintiff.

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, it is difficult to prevent and investigate crimes, such as quasi-Fraud, delayed payment of wages, violence, and cruel acts against the plaintiffs committed by salt owners in the area of this case, and it constitutes a duty of police officers. It is a duty of police officers to promptly take necessary measures to return to the state where their guardians are confirmed pursuant to the Missing Child Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In addition to the plaintiffs' specific exercise or non-exercise of public authority, it is problematic whether it is considerably unreasonable because police officers lose their capacity to return to the State or they did not take proper measures, such as 5 to 6 times a year, and 10 years a year a year a police officer was unable to meet with the duty of police officers, and 2 years a police officer's duty of return to the State or 4 years a person with intellectual disability who did not have been registered under the former Act and subordinate statutes.

G) Sub-determination

Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to pay the Plaintiff J 30,00,000 consolation money and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from December 9, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2) Determination on the act of labor inspector’s duty

A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

(1) Provisions

Article 101 (Supervisory Authorities) (1) of the Labor Standards Act shall have a labor inspector and an agency under its jurisdiction in order to secure the standards of working conditions. (2) Matters concerning the qualifications, appointment and dismissal, and placement of a labor inspector shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. (1) labor inspector shall be able to inspect workplaces, dormitories, and other annexed buildings, to request the submission of books and documents, and to interrogate both an employer and workers. (2) A labor inspector who is a medical doctor or a medical doctor entrusted by a labor inspector may conduct a medical examination for workers who are suspected of suffering from diseases due to which employment should be prohibited. (3) In the case of paragraphs (1) and (2), a labor inspector or medical doctor entrusted by him/her shall present his/her identification certificate and a written order of inspection or examination issued by the Minister of Employment and Labor. (4) The date, time, place, and scope of such order shall be clearly stated in a written order of inspection or examination issued under paragraph (3).

(1) Of Grade 8 and 9, those who are appointed by the chief public prosecutor of the district public prosecutor's office having jurisdiction over the workplace upon the recommendation of the head of the agency to which they belong shall perform the duties of judicial police officers with respect to crimes under paragraph (1). The purpose of this Directive is to prescribe matters necessary for the performance of the duties of labor inspectors under Chapter 11 of the Labor Standards Act: Provided, That this shall be to separately determine matters concerning the duties of labor inspectors [the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and Protection, etc. of Workers (hereinafter referred to as "labor Inspectors") and the Act on the Protection, etc. of Workers, and the subordinate offices thereof. The following matters for the supervision of workplaces, labor management cooperation, industrial safety, protection of working women, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the duties of labor inspectors" means the supervision of workplaces under Article 11; the receipt and handling of reports on labor at workplaces and other related Acts and subordinate statutes of the Act and subordinate statutes related to the comprehensive employment promotion of workplaces and the comprehensive employment inspector's orders for the following matters:

3. Special supervision: A labor supervisor conducted to investigate a violation of labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to any of the following workplaces. A workplace which has caused or is highly likely to cause labor-management disputes due to serious violations of labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, collective agreements - rules of employment and labor contracts, etc.; or a workplace which has caused multiple-related civil petitions or causes social controversy due to habitual delayed payment, etc. because money and valuables, such as wages, have not been paid by the due date. A workplace which has caused social controversy due to illegal temporary placement, temporary placement, discriminatory treatment against temporary agency workers, temporary agency workers, etc.

(2) Legal principles

In order to recognize the State liability due to the omission by a public official, the requirements of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, i.e., “where a public official causes damage to another person by intention or negligence in performing his/her duties, and intentionally or negligently,” should be satisfied. Here, “in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes” refer to cases where a public official violates his/her duty to act explicitly in the statute of a strict formal meaning, but it does not mean cases where a public official violates such duty, including cases where a public official fails to comply with the rules or norms that should be observed as a public official, such as respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of power, and good faith, and where such act widely lacks objective legitimacy (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da64365, Jun. 12, 2008).

B) Plaintiff C’s claim

(1) Facts of recognition

Under the facts, the above macroscopic evidence and the purport of the oral argument, Plaintiff C received the delegation note of this case, stating that “X will commission Plaintiff C to raise Plaintiff C, and will not claim subsequent wages and all benefits from Plaintiff C, and that “I will not claim subsequent wages from the Plaintiff’s work after receiving the direction of Plaintiff C to complete the investigation of Plaintiff C’s wages from around March 29, 2003 to March 4, 2014, from the salt farm operated by the Jeonnam-do D, and that Plaintiff C would not receive wages from March 17, 2011, and the complete police station received an investigation report to the effect that Plaintiff C would not receive the 5-year wage from the above salt farm, and that Plaintiff C will not receive the direction of Plaintiff C to complete the investigation of Plaintiff C’s wages from Plaintiff C’s worker on the ground that Plaintiff C’s wage was transferred from the complete police station on June 29, 201, and Plaintiff C will not be deemed to have received the direction of Plaintiff C et al.

(2) Determination

The Plaintiff C’s assertion on this is without merit, since there is no evidence to deem that the public official of the Mana Labor Branch Office was forced to work free of consideration, without taking appropriate measures, even if he knew or could have known that the public official was aware of such fact.

C) As to the plaintiffs' other arguments

(1) Facts of recognition

According to the facts, the above macroscopic evidence, and the purport of the whole oral argument, it is recognized that the labor inspector of the Mapo Labor Branch having jurisdiction over the area of this case did not implement the supervision of the workplace for the purpose of identifying the facts of violation of the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act, etc. of the Plaintiff et al. against the salt farm workers, such as the Plaintiffs, in the instant area.

(2) Determination

A labor inspector shall have the duty to supervise a workplace, such as salt farms, in relation to a crime of violation of the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act, against the Plaintiffs committed by salters in the instant area in accordance with the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s work rules, and the work regulations providing for such duty are the supplementary administrative rules established pursuant to the delegation of Chapter Eleven (Articles 101 through 106) of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the labor inspector’s duty is the legal duty.

Meanwhile, as a matter of principle, one of the several workplaces under the jurisdiction of the Mapo Labor Site Office is at the discretion of the Mapo Labor Site Office. The plaintiffs asserted that the labor inspector's special supervisory authority over the salt farm business place may be reduced at zero because the Mapo Labor Site was causing this social problem. However, there is no proof as to the circumstances that the labor inspector of the Mapo Labor Site Office should conduct special supervision over the salt farm in preference to other workplaces under the jurisdiction of the Mapo Labor Site Office, and therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) Determination on the violation of the duty of management and supervision of the job placement office

A) Relevant provisions

(1) In order to achieve the purpose of this Act, the Government shall conduct the following affairs. (6) The guidance for job placement services, employment information services, workers recruitment or labor supply business under Article 19. (1) shall be classified into domestic or overseas fee-charging job placement services based on the place where a worker subject to introduction intends to find a job, and any person who intends to conduct domestic or overseas fee-charging job placement services shall register with the Governor of the Special Self-Governing Province having jurisdiction over the location of the principal place of business - the head of the - the person who intends to conduct overseas fee-charging job placement services shall register with the Minister of Employment and Labor. The same shall also apply to any revision to registered matters. (1) If the Minister of Employment and Labor or the Governor of the Special Self-Governing Province or the head of the - the head of the Gun/Gu deems it necessary, he/she may require the person subject to investigation or permission under Article 18, 19, 23 or 3 to submit data necessary for enforcing this Act or to file a report with the Minister of Employment and Labor or other related persons:

B) Determination

According to the facts, the above macroscopic evidence, and the purport of the whole argument, it is acknowledged that in the instant area, the disabled persons or homeless persons, such as the plaintiffs, are forced to be placed in the salt farm, are not paid wages, are prevented from getting out of the island, and there have been salters by assault, etc., and the circumstances why the salt farm workers have worked in the salt farm are diverse, but most of the intellectual ability is insufficient, and it is recognized that the "one-time", which is likely to attract people who lack intellectual ability to know in the station, terminal, etc., is induced to the illegal job placement service provider located at the time of propagation, and that the illegal job placement service provider started work by receiving the introduction fee from the salt owners, and it is found that the illegal job placement service provider started work in the manner of exceeding them.

However, it is difficult to view the above recognition alone that Defendant Republic of Korea committed an unlawful act, such as not exercising any supervisory authority under the Employment Security Act, and there is no other assertion as to Defendant Republic of Korea’s specific above-mentioned act. Therefore, the above assertion by

B. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant New Security Armed Forces (0th Plaintiffs’ claim)

1) As to the violation of the duty to manage and supervise the place of arrival

A) Whether fishing villages and fishery harbors have been violated

(1) Relevant provisions

어촌·어항법제2조(정의) 이 법에서 사용하는 용어의 뜻은 다음과 같다.3. “어항"이란 천연 또는 인공의 어항시설을 갖춘 수산업 근거지로서 제17조에 따라 지정 · 고시된 것을 말하며 그 종류는 다음과 같다.가. 국가어항: 이용 범위가 전국적인 어항 또는 섬, 외딴 곳에 있어 어장( 「어장관리법」 제2조제1호에 따른 어장을 말한다. 이하 같다)의 개발 및 어선의 대피에 필요한 어항나. 지방어항: 이용 범위가 지역적이고 연안어업에 대한 지원의 근거지가 되는 어항다. 어촌정주어항(漁村定住漁港): 어촌의 생활 근거지가 되는 소규모 어항라. 마을공동어항 어촌정주어항에 속하지 아니한 소규모 어항으로서 어업인들이 공동으로 이용하는 항포구5. “어항시설"이란 어항구역 안에 있는 다음 각 목의 시설과 어항구역 밖에 있는 다음 가목 및나목의 시설로서 해양수산부장관, 광역시장 · 도지사 · 특별자치도지사(이하 “시·도지사"라 한다) 또는 시장·군수·구청장(자치구의 구청장을 말한다. 이하 같다)이 제17조에 따라 지정·고시한 것을 말한다.가. 기본시설2) 안벽(岸壁) · 물양장(物場場) - 계선부표(船浮標) -계선말뚝 · 잔교(楚橋) · 부잔교(浮棧橋) · 선착장 · 선양장(船場場) 등 계류시설(繫留施設)제17조(어항 등의 지정 · 변경 및 해제) ① 지정권자는 어항의 경우에는 어항의 명칭 · 종류 · 위치 및 구역을 정하여 지정하고, 어항구역 밖의 어항시설의 경우에는 소속 어항, 시설의 명칭 ·종류 · 위치를 정하여 지정한다.② 제1항에 따른 어항 및 어항시설의 지정에 필요한 사항은 해양수산부령으로 정한다.③ 제1항에 따라 시·도지사가 지방어항을 지정하려 하거나 시장·군수·구청장이 어촌정주어항 및 마을공동어항을 지정하려면 해양수산부령으로 정하는 바에 따라 미리 해양수산부장관또는 시·도지사와 협의하여야 한다.④ 지정권자는 어항의 경제적 · 사회적 · 물리적 여건이 변하거나 그 밖에 해양수산부령으로 정하는 사유가 발생하였을 때에는 제1항에 따른 지정 내용을 변경하거나 지정을 해제할 수 있다.⑤ 해양수산부장관 또는 시·도지사는 제1항 및 제4항에 따라 어항을 지정 · 변경 또는 지정을해제하려면 국가어항의 경우에는 그 어항의 소재지를 관할하는 시·도지사의 의견을 들어야하고, 지방어항의 경우에는 그 어항의 소재지를 관할하는 시장·군수·구청장의 의견을 들어야한다.⑥ 지정권자는 어항으로 지정하려는 구역에 이미 다른 법률에 따라 토지 또는 수면의 이용에관한 지구 지역 · 구역 등의 지정이 있는 경우에는 미리 관계 행정기관의 장과 협의하여야 한다.⑦ 지정권자는 어항 또는 어항구역 밖의 어항시설을 지정·변경 또는 지정을 해제하였을 때에는 그 내용을 고시하여야 한다.

(2) Determination

0. The plaintiffs constitute fishery harbor facilities to which fishing villages and fishery harbors apply, and the Ordinance on the Management of New-Military Fishery Harbors applies to the back wharfs. Since the above Ordinance imposes an obligation to manage fishery harbor facilities on the Defendant New-Gun, it is alleged that the failure to sell the tickets to the salt farm workers is a violation of the obligation to manage the fishery harbor facilities of the Defendant, but the fishery harbor facilities under fishing villages and fishery harbors are designated and announced by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as facilities under the following items (a) and (b) outside the area of fishery harbors, and the Metropolitan City Mayors, Metropolitan City Mayors, Do branches, Special Self-Governing Province Governors, or the heads of Sis/Guns/Gus are designated and announced pursuant to Article 17, since there is no proof that the ship wharfs in this case were designated and publicly announced pursuant to Article 17 of the Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors Act, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit if the ship wharfs in this case are premised on the premise that they fall under the fishery ports:

B) Whether the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities is violated

(1) Relevant provisions

Article 8 (Duties of the State and Local Governments) (1) of the Act on Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (Duties of the State and Local Governments) (1) The State and local governments shall be responsible for preventing all discrimination against persons with disabilities and persons related to persons with disabilities and remedying their rights, such as persons with disabilities, and shall take active measures to rectify discrimination provided for in this Act in order to substantially eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities. The providers of goods, services, etc.,

The provider of goods, services, etc. shall not be deprived of the opportunity for the disabled to benefit by using the goods, services, etc. in question.

(2) Determination

In the instant landing place, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant Shin-gun did not sell the tickets to salt farm workers, including the Plaintiffs, and even if the Plaintiff did not sell the tickets, it is difficult to view that the Defendant Shin Young-gun did not take any measures to eliminate discrimination against the disabled under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons, and otherwise, there is no assertion regarding the Defendant Shin Young-gun’s unlawful act. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

2) Regarding the duties of social welfare officials

A) Relevant provisions

Article 33-2 (Application for Social Welfare Services) (1) A person in need of social welfare services (hereinafter referred to as "person in need of protection") and his/her relatives, and other related persons may apply to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu for the provision of social welfare services (hereinafter referred to as "provision of services"). (2) A Si/Gun/Gu public official in charge of welfare may, ex officio, apply for the provision of services to a person in need of protection who resides in his/her jurisdiction in order to prevent the omission of a person in need of protection under this Act. In such cases, he/she shall obtain the consent of the person in need of protection and shall be deemed to have applied for the consent if he/she has obtained the consent. (1) When the head of a Si/Gun/Gu determines to provide services on behalf of the person in need of protection, he/she shall prepare a plan for the provision of services for each person in need of protection including the following matters, after hearing the opinions of

1. An institution or organization which provides social welfare services and health and medical treatment services under subparagraph 1; 2. The type, method, quantity, and period of provision; 3. The institution or organization which shall provide the same person eligible for protection under subparagraph 1; 2. The institution or organization shall provide the services according to a linkage method between the institutions or organizations (Provision of Services) and (1) the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall provide the services according to a plan to provide the services to each person eligible for protection prepared pursuant to Article 33-5. < Amended by Act No. 19 (Guarantee Agency) of the National Basic Living Security Act (1) The Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the place of residence of the beneficiary or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place of residence of the beneficiary (hereinafter referred to as the "superintendent/Do superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education" in cases of educational benefits under Article 7 (1) 4; hereinafter the same shall apply): Provided, That where a beneficiary or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu who actually resides in the area where the beneficiary actually resides is responsible for social welfare benefits (hereinafter referred to provide social welfare benefits).

B) Determination

According to the facts, the above macroscopic evidence and the whole purport of the arguments, it is recognized that there was a person who was unable to receive welfare services, such as welfare for the disabled or national basic livelihood security, among salt farm workers like the plaintiffs, even though they could be subject to welfare services such as the welfare of the disabled or basic livelihood security.

According to the above facts of recognition, the welfare public officials belonging to the defendant Shin-gun shall be entitled to welfare services.

The case holding that although it is confirmed that the plaintiffs can not be identified as persons eligible for welfare services and that they could not provide appropriate welfare services, it is confirmed that the public officials in charge of welfare service of the 0th public officials in charge of the 0th public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 3nd public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 2nd public officials in charge of the 2014th public officials in charge of the 1,208th public officials in charge of the 2015 public officials in charge of the 1,208th public officials in charge of the 12nd public officials in charge of the 2015 public officials in charge of the 20th public officials in charge of the 20th public officials in charge of the 3nd public officials in charge of the 2011th public officials in charge.

1) Facts of recognition

According to the facts, the above macroscopic evidence, and the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff C was registered as a disability Grade 3 on November 16, 201, which had been detained in the Z X X and had been forced to work, after having received a disability diagnosis from the mental and medical doctor BA of the Z Hospital and then had been registered as a disability on December 16, 201 of the same year, and the disability diagnosis report of the plaintiff C prepared by the doctor BA on the part of the plaintiff C was being treated under the above diagnosis (cadastral disorder), and it is necessary to supervise and assist others in their daily life and social life due to the decline of intellectual functions. It is determined that there is a high possibility that mental disorder may occur in the future.

In addition, the fact that it stated that it is necessary to treat the above-mentioned pharmacologic for a long time due to depression, personal hygiene, etc., the public officials in charge of social welfare on May 2, 2012, May 17, 2012, and counseling with Plaintiff C over four times on March 5, 2014, and the record of counseling is recorded on May 2, 2012. The record of counseling with Defendant B, which entered X-1's house for the above-mentioned period of time, is an applicant X-2 who is currently under protection, and that X-2's household food and welfare facilities will not work for the above-mentioned period of time, and that X-2's household food and welfare facilities will not work for the above-mentioned period of time, such as counseling with Plaintiff C-1's household food and welfare facilities, and that X-2's household food and welfare facilities will not work for the above-mentioned period of time.

2) Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, it is confirmed that the public official in charge of the welfare of the PMyeon community service center belonging to Defendant Bodo-gun had intellectual disability through consultation around May 2012, and that the plaintiff C was not properly verified as to whether the plaintiff C was receiving wages for resolving the board and lodging at the house X and working for the salt farm in the P section without a relative relative, although he was aware of the fact that the relevant case was reported to the media on February 2014 and did not take any specific protective measures before the heavy investigation into the media, it is difficult to view that the above awareness was found that the public official in charge of the welfare service belonging to the defendant Chodo-gun did not immediately have the duty to take special protective measures, and it is difficult to view that the omission by the public official in charge of the welfare service belonging to the defendant Chodo-gun-gun was unlawful, and there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the omission by the public official in charge of the welfare service belonging to the defendant Chodo-gun-gun was unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff J's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the claims against the plaintiff A, C, E, F, H, K, and N, and the claims against the plaintiff J's defendant Shin Young-gun shall be dismissed on the grounds of their merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For judges standing:

Judges Lee Jong-deok