The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to recognize the state liability due to a public official’s omission, the requirements of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, which provides that “When a public official causes damage to another person by intention or negligence in violation of the law, in performing his/her duties,” should be satisfied. Here, “in violation of the law” refers to cases where a public official violates the law explicitly provided for in the law of a strict formal meaning, but it does not mean cases where the public official’s duty to act is breached. It includes cases where a public official violates the law, such as respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of power, and good faith, and includes cases where the act widely lacks objective legitimacy.

Therefore, in cases where a state whose primary mission is to protect the lives, etc. of citizens is to protect the lives, etc. of citizens because a state whose primary mission is to protect the lives, etc. of citizens has occurred or is highly likely to occur due to imminent and serious danger to the lives, bodies, property, etc. of citizens, it is necessary to recognize the duty to act by excluding such danger to the State or relevant public officials, even though there is no basis in the formal meaning of law, unless there is a situation where such imminent and serious danger has occurred or is highly likely to occur. However, in principle, if a public official performs his/her duties as prescribed in the relevant law, he/she cannot be deemed to have violated the law by omission of public officials.

Therefore, there is no provision of the law that orders the relevant public officials to act when the issue is whether or not to recognize the state liability due to the omission of public officials.