[1] Criteria for determining the proximate causal relationship between a public official’s occupational violation and damages

[2] Whether the reporting of amusement businesses affecting the public morals under the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting the Public Morals, and whether the acceptance of the report is the purpose of protecting the safety and interests of an individual other than the general interest (negative)

[3] The case holding that there is no proximate causal relation between the transferee's business losses due to the act of accepting the business registration report by the chief of a police station, the act of accepting the business registration report by the former operator, or the act of not immediately correcting it, and the act of not correcting it, and the business registration report by the latter operator, in case where the chief of a police station rejected the business registration report by the latter operator, although the chief of a police station submitted a report on change of the operator's name to change the operator's name pursuant to the provisions of the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Publicffecting Public Morals

[1] In order to claim damages against a third party due to a public official’s violation of an official duty imposed by a law, if a third party is damaged, there is no proximate causal relation between a public official’s violation of an official duty and a third party’s loss. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, not only the probability of the occurrence of a general result, but also the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and other action rules that impose an official duty, or the form and degree of damage, etc. of the harmful act, shall be comprehensively taken into account. If the purpose of protecting the Acts and subordinate statutes that impose an official duty is not to protect the interests and safety of the members of society, but also to regulate the internal order of the public public interest and the administrative agency, if the purpose of protecting the laws and regulations that impose an official duty is not to protect the interests and safety of the members of society, and if a public official

[2] Article 5 of the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals (amended by Act No. 5942 of March 31, 1999) provides that any person who intends to carry on the amusement business affecting public morals, who is not subject to permission, authorization, registration, or reporting, shall report to the chief of the competent police station under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall contribute to the preservation of public morals and the protection of juveniles by undermining good morals or undermining the sound fostering of juveniles (Article 1). Thus, the report and acceptance of the amusement business affecting public morals required under the above Act shall be deemed to be solely for public interest, and it shall not be deemed that it is for protecting the safety and interests of individuals, especially for private transaction.

[3] The case holding that there is no proximate causal relation between the transferee's business losses due to the act of accepting the business registration report by the chief of a police station, the act of not correcting the former business registration report, or the act of not immediately correcting it, and the act of not correcting it, in case where the chief of a police station rejected the registration report by the former operator, although the chief of a police station submitted a report of change of the amusement business to the superintendent of a police station for the purpose of changing the name of the proprietor in accordance with the provisions of the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public morals after acquiring all the facilities and businesses

[1] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 5 of the former Act on the Regulation on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals (amended by Act No. 5942 of March 31, 199) / [3] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act, Article 5 of the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals (amended by Act No. 5942 of March 31, 199), Article 5 (2), (3), and (4) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes, Article 4 (2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes, Article 6 (1) 14 of the School Health Act, Article 4-2 subparagraph 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Health Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da30877 delivered on June 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 1923), Supreme Court Decision 94Da36285 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 667), Supreme Court Decision 97Da12907 delivered on September 9, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 305)

Article 2 (Use of Information by Attorney Ahn Jae-won, Counsel for defendant)

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 99Na10431 delivered on June 2, 2000

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

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

The court below, as stated in its holding, submitted a business report under the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals (amended by Act No. 4337 of March 8, 1991) and voluntarily closed down the business on the second floor of the building of this case from April 3, 1993, and its wife's address was new on January 21, 1998 for the purpose of running the singing room business at the same place, and rejected the report report under the above Act (amended by Act No. 5295 of March 7, 1997) to the head of the Jinju Police Station for the alteration of the business report under the same name as the above, and rejected the report for alteration of the business report under the same Act, which was issued by the public official in charge of performing the business of this case on the ground that it was not possible for the plaintiff to file a report for alteration of the business report under the above Act, and since it was found that the public official in charge of this case's name and its change of the business.

① First of all, the Plaintiff’s transfer of a singing practice room is a violation of the Plaintiff’s report of this case’s business name on the ground that each of the above private teaching institutes was established in the vicinity. The Plaintiff’s transfer of a singing practice room constitutes an illegal act. The Plaintiff’s transfer of a singing practice room, not the singing practice room originally established, but its new establishment and start its business after its closure. The Plaintiff’s transfer of a singing practice room was without dispute between the Plaintiff’s establishment and the Plaintiff’s transfer of the pertinent building prior to the date of its report of the singing practice room business under the name of the above leapscope. The Plaintiff’s above assertion that the Plaintiff’s transfer of a singing practice room under the above different premise did not have any reasonable causal relation between the Plaintiff’s illegal act and the Plaintiff’s business owner’s transfer of the entertainment practice room under the law, despite the Plaintiff’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party.

2. As to the legality of a return-in-report disposition

According to Article 5(2) through (4) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes, Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 6(1)14 of the School Health Act, and Article 4-2 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., it is apparent that the practice room of this case constitutes a place of business which might harm the educational environment provided for in Article 5(3) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter referred to as the "harmful place of business"), and the chief of the competent police station shall consult with the superintendent of the competent office of education in advance as the head of the administrative agency who grants permission and authorization for the business if he establishes a harmful place of business adjacent to a private teaching institute which mainly provides that a private teaching institute shall not be located in the same building as a harmful place of business, and thus, it is legitimate to accept a report on modification of the Plaintiff's practice room's business due to the fact that the chief of the competent police station, who received the report of modification on the ground of the plaintiff's new report.

In addition, even if the measure of the head of the Jinju Police Station who rejected the report on the change of business name without accepting the report on the change of business name as alleged by the plaintiff is illegal, the judgment that there is no proximate causal relation between the illegal report on the change of business name of the head of the Jinju Police Station and the above business loss of the plaintiff's assertion shall be added and family. Thus, as long as the judgment of the court below is recognized as legitimate, this part cannot affect the judgment, the ground for appeal that there is a reason such as the omission of judgment and the misapprehension of

3. As to the causal relationship between the illegal act of accepting a report on the amusement business affecting the public morals and losses

In order to claim damages against a third party on the ground of a public official’s violation of an official duty imposed by law, there is no proximate causal relationship between a public official’s violation of an official duty and a third party’s loss. In determining the existence of proximate causal relationship, not only the probability of the occurrence of a general result, but also the purpose of statutes and other rules of conduct that impose an official duty, or the form and degree of harm, etc. of harmful acts. If the purpose of protection of statutes that impose an official duty is not to protect the interests and safety of social members, but merely to regulate the internal order of the public interest and the administrative agency, if a domestic public official suffers damage to a third party on the ground of a public official’s violation of an official duty, there is no proximate causal relationship between the act in violation of an official duty and the damage suffered by a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da43466, Feb. 12, 193; 93Da3087, Jun. 10, 1994).

Article 5 of the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals (amended by Act No. 5942 of Mar. 31, 1999) provides that any person who intends to carry on the amusement business affecting public morals other than those permitted, authorized, registered, or reported to the chief of a police station under other Acts shall contribute to the preservation of public morals and the protection of juveniles by impairing good morals and regulating any act detrimental to the sound fostering of juveniles, etc. (Article 1). Thus, the report of the amusement business affecting public morals required under the above Act and the acceptance thereof shall be deemed to be solely for public interest, and it shall not be deemed that it is necessary to protect the safety of private transactions, especially for the safety of individuals, even if incidental to the above Act.

In this case, the court below's determination that there is no proximate causal relation between the violation of the duty by the chief of the Jinju Police Station and the business losses claimed by the plaintiff, even though the chief of the Jinju Police Station accepted the report of the amusement business affecting the Ninju, or did not correct it immediately, shall be justified in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality in state compensation and causal relation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. As to the illegal act by the police officer in charge

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the assertion that the police officer in charge of the Jinju Police Station and the above-young conspired to commit a tort is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as incomplete hearing and violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)