Plaintiff 1 and 22 others (Law Firm Chang, Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

October 23, 2003

Seoul District Court Decision 9Da62864 delivered on May 28, 2002

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall deliver 0,00,000 won to the plaintiff 1 for the above 20,000 won, 10,000 won, 35,00,000 won to the plaintiff 3, 25,000 won, 40,000 won to the plaintiff 5, 200,000 won, 25,000 won to the plaintiff 6, 7, 2000 won, 00 won to the plaintiff 1 for each of the above 0,000 won, 30,000 won to the plaintiff 1 for the above 0,000 won, 10,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 05,00 won to the plaintiff 1 for the above 0,00 won, 35,000,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 30,501, 10,000 won to the plaintiff 6, 05, 10

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs shall be revoked to the plaintiff 1 37,00,000, 9,000, 32,000, 400, 300, 3000, 37,0000, 3000, 600, 23,0000, 18,0000, 18,0000, 200, 200, 18,000, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 200, 100, 200, 200, 300, 100, 200, 300, 100, 300, 100, 300, 10, 300, 10, 300, 10, 10.

Defendant: as set forth in the Disposition.

1. Basic facts

Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-4, evidence 2-3, evidence 3-3, evidence 3-9, evidence 3-10, 14 through 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 46, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, and evidence 15-1 through 6, evidence 16, evidence 17-2, evidence 17-2, 3, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 29, 32, 33, and 34 of the above evidence, and witness of the trial and witness of the non-party 6, and non-party 1's testimony can be acknowledged as follows:

A. The non-party 2 social welfare foundation (hereinafter "non-party 2 social welfare foundation") was established for the purpose of establishing and operating rehabilitation facilities for persons with hearing language disabilities and operating guidance facilities for persons with hearing language disabilities, and established the non-party 3 who is a sanatorium for persons with severe disabilities, a sanatorium for treatment of mentally disabled persons, a sanatorium for treatment of mentally disabled persons, and a guidance facility for vagabonds, and the non-party 3 jointly operated the above facilities as the representative director of the welfare court, the non-party 8's president of the non-party’s sanatorium, and the non-party 4 as

B. From 9.1 to 9.2, the rest of the plaintiffs from 19.2 to 19.2 from 19.2 to 19.8, the plaintiffs from 190 to 19.2 from 9.8, and from 1996 to 19.7.8, the plaintiffs from 1991 to 19.6.9 to 19.7.9, the rest of the plaintiffs from 19.2 to 19.9 to 19.6, respectively, were 198, and the plaintiffs from 19.6 to 9.7.9 to 19.6, and from 9.6 to 19.8, the rest of the plaintiffs from 19.1 to 19.9 to 19.8, the rest of the plaintiffs from 29.6 to 19.9 to 198, respectively.

C. Nonparty 5 died on August 4, 199 and succeeded to Plaintiff 20-1 and Plaintiff 20-2’s property.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs were detained in a leading facility, a guidance facility, or a sanatorium for mentally ill persons, without due process, and forced labor for forced labor, forced labor for a person subject to violence, or forced labor for a person subject to medication in the event of illegal acceptance. The plaintiffs asserted that the police and public officials, in the process of being admitted to the above facilities, have silented or defended the illegal abduction and confinement of the plaintiffs directly and indirectly, and that the non-party 1, a public official who is obligated to direct and supervise the above facilities, received a bribe in return for the reduction of the actual state of the plaintiffs detained in the above facilities and left the plaintiffs unattended at the scene of human solicitation. Thus, the defendant should compensate for damages to the plaintiffs who suffered from a tort in the course of public official's official duty.

B. Determination as to Plaintiffs 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 21

Since the above plaintiffs did not have specific assertion and evidence as to which contents are recommended in relation to the leading facilities of the non-party or the sanatoriums of the non-party, the above plaintiffs' claims are without merit without any need for further examination.

C. The judgment on the remaining plaintiffs (Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20-1, 20-2, and 22)

According to Gap evidence No. 3-3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 61, and 17-2, 3, 12, 17, 20, 21, 25, 29, 32, 33, and 34 [a statement or statement made based on the above plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 20-1, 20-2, and 5 (hereinafter plaintiff 1 et al.)]'s statement, it is recognized that the plaintiff 1 et al. was unfairly treated as the separate statement, but there is no evidence that the police and public officials knew that the non-party 4 et al. were unlawfully arrested or detained in the process of taking advantage of the plaintiff 1 et al. into custody, or that there is no evidence that the non-party 5 et al. knew or was treated as the witness of the same court.

In addition, in order to recognize the defendant's liability for damages, the requirements of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, which states that "when a state public official is responsible for performing his duties and has inflicted damage on another person by intention or negligence in violation of the law," should be satisfied, and whether the above non-party 1 is a state public official.

According to Article 37 of the former Social Welfare Services Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5358, Aug. 22, 1997; hereinafter the same), “the Minister of Health and Welfare or the Mayor/Do Governor shall guide and supervise corporations or facilities.” Article 38 of the Act provides that “The Minister of Health and Welfare or the Mayor/Do Governor may delegate part of his/her authority to the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” This does not include the delegation of authority under Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act to the Minister of Health and Welfare or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, which is a public official of the Ministry of Health and Welfare or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, to the authority delegated to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu for the management of social welfare facilities (see Articles 11, 22, 29, 30, and 37, which are the head of the Gu’s authority delegated to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed without merit, and since the part of defendant's failure in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Hong-gi (Presiding Judge)