2015Na2023466 Damages

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap54430 Decided May 1, 2015

September 17, 2015

October 15, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 403,256,296 won, Plaintiff B, C, and D 235,504,197 won, respectively, and 5% per annum from July 2, 1976 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under each of the following orders for payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5 million won each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from July 2, 1976 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

The plaintiffs asserted that, at the time of the instant case, an investigator or a judge had the awareness that the act of investigating, tried, and tried against a violator pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and Emergency Decree No. 9 would result in the same, and thus, an intentional act may be deemed recognized. Since it is objectively judged unlawful in light of the overall legal order whether an investigator or a judge conducted an investigation or tried by applying Emergency Decree No. 9 is illegal, it is not necessary to recognize the illegality in order to recognize an intentional act, the investigation or trial by the above investigator or judge constitutes a tort. Even if there was no intention by an individual investigator or judge, it should be recognized as a tort by the State itself.

In light of the above, it is sufficient that the perception of intention is objectively unlawful because the group of persons who suffered from an infringement, which is objectively unlawful, has an awareness that it would inflict damage on others at least in the supervision of an actor, and it is not necessary to subjectively recognize that the harm was unlawful. The language and text of Article 53(4) of the Newly Inserted by Act No. 53(4) and the Constitutional Court (Supreme Court en banc Order 2011 dated April 18, 201) and the Constitutional Court (Hun-Ba70, 132, 170 (Joint) Decided March 21, 2013) were unconstitutional and void, and it is difficult to view that the act cannot be seen as unlawful as being committed by an investigator or a judge at the time of the above investigation or trial, and as long as the act cannot be seen as being committed by an investigator or a judge at the time of the above emergency action, it cannot be viewed that it was objectively unlawful as it did not constitute an investigation or a judgment of unconstitutional as it did not constitute an unlawful act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, associate judge and assistant judge

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Min Il-young