[1] The elements and criteria for establishing State liability in a case where a certain administrative disposition is revoked as illegal in an appeal litigation after the appeal

[2] Where the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee finds fact-finding clearly contrary to the final and conclusive judgment without any reasonable ground, in civil cases in which a worker becomes a party and a judgment that does not recognize such a disability has become final and conclusive, whether such a judgment can satisfy the requirements for state liability (affirmative)

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which held that in case where the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee rendered a ruling to revoke the disposition of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation in accordance with the purport of the above final and conclusive judgment on the basis of the fact-finding that there was no special circumstance such as submission of new materials to reverse the contents of the final and conclusive civil judgment, even though the judgment was final and conclusive in the relevant civil litigation that did not recognize the worker Gap's successor to the disability, and all of the main evidence which served as the basis for the judgment were rejected, the judgment satisfies the requirements for state liability, and caused an irrecoverable mental suffering by forcing the employer Eul to file an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the judgment

[1] Even if a certain administrative disposition is revoked in an appeal litigation after it is unlawful, it cannot be determined that the pertinent administrative disposition constitutes a tort by a public official's intentional or negligent negligence. However, in a case where the public official in charge of the pertinent administrative disposition is deemed to have lost objective legitimacy by neglecting his/her duty of care in light of the general public's standard, the public official in charge of the pertinent administrative disposition must be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for State compensation liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act. In such a case, whether the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy shall be determined by taking into account the various circumstances, including the form and purpose of the administrative disposition, the purpose thereof, whether the victim is involved and the degree of involvement, the type of the infringed benefit and the degree of damage, etc., and it shall be determined by examining whether there is a substantial reason for the State or local

[2] The review procedure of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on the decision of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service on the insurance benefits (hereinafter "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee") is a separate procedure different from the civil trial procedure, not bound by the facts established in the judgment of the civil case, etc., and even if not, it cannot be rejected without any reasonable ground, since the facts established in the relevant civil case already established are material for a significant judgment, barring any special circumstances. In particular, it is more true if the facts constituting the basis of the dispute and the purpose of the claim are confirmed in the civil lawsuit closely related to the disposition of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service. Therefore, even though the civil case where the relevant worker is a party and the judgment that does not recognize such a disability is clearly contrary to the final and conclusive judgment without any justifiable ground, if the Industrial Accident Compensation and Welfare Committee finds the fact-finding that it is clearly contrary to the final and conclusive judgment without any justifiable ground, such a judgment shall lose the objective legitimacy beyond the permissible discretion to the administrative agency in the field of

[3] In a case where the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee rendered a ruling revoking the disposition of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to the purport of the above final and conclusive judgment on the basis of the fact-finding that is clearly contrary to the circumstances, such as submission of new materials to reverse the contents of the final and conclusive civil judgment, even though the judgment was final and conclusive in the relevant civil litigation that did not recognize the worker Gap's successor to disability at the time of the first judgment, the case affirming the judgment below which held that, in light of the public official who deals with the industrial accident compensation insurance business as a standard, the ordinary public official who is in charge of the industrial accident compensation insurance has lost objective legitimacy, the judgment satisfies the requirements for State liability, and caused an irrecoverable mental suffering by compelling the employer to file an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the judgment and to file a response.

[1] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act / [3] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da70600 decided May 12, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1403) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, 92329 decided September 24, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1740)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Na33803 Decided April 8, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if any administrative disposition is revoked after it is illegal and therefore, it cannot be determined that the pertinent administrative disposition constitutes a tort caused by a public official's intentional or negligent act. However, in a case where the public official in charge of such administrative disposition's general public official's duty of care is recognized to have lost objective legitimacy, it is reasonable to deem that the public official in charge of such administrative disposition satisfied the requirements for State compensation under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act. In this case, whether the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the form and purpose of the administrative disposition, whether it is an infringement, whether it is a victim's involvement and degree of involvement, the type of infringed benefit and degree of loss, etc., and it shall be determined by examining whether there is a substantial reason to assume the responsibility for compensating damages on the part of the State or local government (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da70600, May 12, 200). This is the same as in a case where an administrative

On the other hand, the review procedure of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on the decision of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service on insurance benefits (hereinafter "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee") is a separate procedure different from the civil trial procedure, not bound by the facts established in the judgment on civil cases, etc., and even if not, the facts established in the relevant civil case already established cannot be rejected without any reasonable ground, unless there are special circumstances. In particular, if the facts which form the basis of the dispute and the purpose of the claim are confirmed in a civil lawsuit closely related to the disposition of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, it is more so if it becomes final and conclusive in the civil lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, Sept. 24, 2009, etc.

Therefore, even though the civil case in which a worker becomes a party and the judgment that does not recognize such a disability has become final and conclusive through the physical appraisal procedure, if the Industrial Accident Examination Committee finds the fact-finding clearly contrary to the contents of the final and conclusive judgment objectively without any reasonable ground, such a judgment shall lose the objective legitimacy beyond the discretion permitted to the administrative agency in the area of professional judgment, and shall meet the requirements of state compensation liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 2, who is an employee of the plaintiff, was subject to the accident of injury to his left hand on April 25, 1997 by the Industrial Accident Compensation and Welfare Service No. 5 (hereinafter "the accident of this case"), and the non-party 2, who is dissatisfied with the decision to pay disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Grade 108) was subject to the non-party 2's request for review on April 29, 199, the Industrial Accident Compensation and Welfare Service's decision No. 3, which was rejected on April 1, 1997. The non-party 2, who was subject to the above judgment No. 30 after the judgment No. 20, the non-party 2, who was sentenced to the above judgment No. 3, which was rejected by the Industrial Accident Compensation and Welfare Service No. 97, the non-party 2, who was not entitled to the above judgment No. 97, the appellate court's judgment on the grounds of appeal No. 2, etc.

Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, since the judgment of this case became final and conclusive in the related civil procedure that does not recognize the non-party's disability at the time of the first ruling and all major evidence which served as the basis for the judgment at the time of the first ruling are rejected, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee shall not recognize the subsequent disability unless there are special circumstances such as submission of new materials to reverse the contents of the final and conclusive civil judgment, but it shall not be recognized, without such circumstances, and it shall be deemed that the judgment of this case is revoked the disposition of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to the purport of the above final and conclusive judgment based on the fact-finding clearly contrary to such circumstances. In light of the general public official who deals with the industrial accident compensation insurance business as a standard, this is deemed as having lost objective legitimacy and thereby satisfying the requirements for the State's liability. The plaintiff shall be deemed as having suffered an irrecoverable mental suffering even if he has won a lawsuit and forced a response to the administrative lawsuit seeking its revocation

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning, it can be accepted as a whole in accordance with the above legal principles, and the defendant's ground of appeal that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the negligence or illegality of state liability cannot be accepted.

3. 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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)