[손해배상(기)][공1998.3.15.(54),717]
[1] Whether a person who is in need of protection under the former Act on Prevention of Prostitution, etc. is forced to attract a person to a police station protection room (negative)
[2] The case holding that since a police officer's act of attracting a woman who does not correspond to a "nicker under the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc." constitutes a "nicker", the state's liability for compensation is recognized as to the act of compelling a police officer to be detained in a police station protection room until he/she takes over a new disease from the place of the protection
[1] Even in accordance with the former Act on Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (amended by Act No. 4911 of Jan. 15, 1995) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14816 of Nov. 30, 1995), a protective disposition against a "victim" can only be taken on the part of the protective police station. The protective disposition against a "victim" in the police station does not have any basis for compulsory custody of a "victim" in the protective police station until he/she is confined to the protective police station. And according to Article 4 (1) and (4) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, etc., the detention at the protective police station is limited to cases where the protective measure is taken within the scope not exceeding 24 hours, and it constitutes a violation of the warrant requirement of the former Act on Protection of Prostitution, etc.
[2] The case holding that the State is liable for State compensation on the ground that the police officer's act of forced custody to the police station protection room without a warrant, on the ground that the police officer's act constitutes a woman who does not correspond to a person who is required to be protected under the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. constitutes a person who is required to be protected under the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc., and that the act of forced custody from the guidance room to the police station protection room without a warrant, and that the act constitutes an immediate administrative compulsory detention that is excluded from the application of warrant requirement, and that it constitutes an illegal detention against the warrant requirement,
[1] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 7 (1) of the former Act on Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (amended by Act No. 4911 of Jan. 15, 1995) (see Articles 2 and 11 of the current Act), Article 4 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers / [2] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 7 (1) of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (amended by Act No. 4911 of Jan. 15, 1995) (see Articles 2 and 11 of the current Act), Article 4 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers
[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Do958 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1229) Supreme Court Decision 94Da3726 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2251)
Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Sung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 95Na22186 delivered on May 21, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
1. On the first ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff 1 was forced to take custody of the above defendant 1 as an employee to take custody of the above non-party 1, who was on July 30, 192, and did not have an opportunity to take custody of the plaintiff 1 as an employee to take custody of the above non-party 1, but the above non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 2 started to take custody of the above non-party 1 as an official to take custody of the above non-party 4, which is not a legitimate measure to protect the non-party 1, and the defendant's non-party 2 did not have an opportunity to take custody of the above non-party 1 as an official to take custody of the above non-party 4, which is not a legitimate measure to protect the non-party 1, such as the court below's non-party 1, which is the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 1, who had been employed by the above non-party 1. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1.
2. On the second ground for appeal
Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below's decision that the court below held that it was negligent in requesting the above plaintiff 2 to accommodate and protect the plaintiff 1 by considering that the plaintiff 2's above light light of "the environment or character and conduct prescribed by the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act" is just and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and misunderstanding of legal principles as to negligence in the state liability for damages, such as violation of the rules of lawsuit, etc., and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and negligence in the state liability. The case of the party members pointing out the lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 72Da2583 delivered on October 10, 1973) is different, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case. The argument also has no merit
3. On the third ground for appeal
In light of the records, since the amount of consolation money calculated by the court below is deemed appropriate, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the calculation of consolation money in the judgment below. We also find without merit.
4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)