205Na12107 Damage, Claim

Article 00 (Omission of Resident Registration Numbers)

Address omitted

Korea

The representative of the law and the Minister of Justice;

○○○, ○○, and ○○, belonging to the National Committee for Integrity of Litigation Performers

Busan District Court Decision 2005Gaso24192 Delivered on August 10, 2005

may 12, 2006

May 26, 2006

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized according to the statements in Gap 1, 2, 4, and 8:

A. On February 1, 2002, the Plaintiff issued on November 16, 1995 a warrant of vicarious administrative execution (Evidence A5) under the name of the president of the redevelopment association on November 13, 1995, which was issued by 00, the president of the AEA (former National Integrity Commission), and removed the Plaintiff’s place of residence. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with ○○ with the Prosecutor No. 32511 on 195, which was the charge of forging official documents, but the Prosecutor filed a disposition of non-prosecution disposition or dismissal in whole or in part with the Prosecutor. The Plaintiff filed a report with the Supreme Court on January 30, 2002, stating that “the prosecutor in charge and 00 must be punished since the prosecutor in charge did not comply with the law” (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s petition”). The Plaintiff’s report was notified as the result of the Plaintiff’s appeal to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s appeal to the 2002.27.27.27.

C. On March 30, 2002, the Plaintiff was notified of the result of handling the said petition, and the Anti-Corruption Commission submitted the report on March 30, 2002 to the Commission on Prevention of Corruption to the effect that it is not a matter of appeal.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that public officials belonging to the Anti-Corruption Commission (1) responded to the plaintiff's above report on January 30, 2002, and the defendant, who is the employer of the public officials belonging to the Anti-Corruption Commission, has the duty to pay consolation money of KRW 20 million and delay damages to the plaintiff under the State Compensation Act, on the ground that (2) the plaintiff did not reply to the report on March 30, 2002, and (3) the head of the Administrative Vicarious Execution (No. 5) did not investigate and disclose the forged fact by this ○○, thereby preventing the plaintiff from exercising his right.

3. Determination

A. The Anti-Corruption Commission may decide, depending on the guidelines for the management of affairs prepared in accordance with the purpose and purport of the Anti-Corruption Act, whether the reported contents are related to corruption or merely a civil petition or petition. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there was any error in law since the Plaintiff received the report of this case as a petition case and completed it. In addition, in the process of opposing the removal of houses by taking charge of the head of the publicity division of the tenant support committee corresponding to the housing implemented by the above redevelopment Cooperatives, the Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment by interfering with the business by the head of the redevelopment Cooperatives, ○○, and thus, the police officers or witnesses involved in the criminal procedure repeatedly filed a false public document preparation and perjury, and thereby, was subject to criminal punishment for non-guilty crimes. Accordingly, the Defendant’s petition for national compensation and criminal disputes continuously occurred since around 1995, including the Plaintiff’s rejection of the prosecutor’s complaint, for reasons that the Anti-Corruption Commission did not comply with the above repeated complaint of this case, and thus, it cannot be said that there was no violation of law as to continue to be concluded.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the notification of the result of handling the petition of this case was prepared falsely is without merit.

B. In addition, the report on March 30, 2002 cannot be deemed as a report on an act of corruption separate from the content of the petition of this case as shown in the above facts, and as long as the result of the treatment of the petition of this case was notified, there is no need to give separate answers. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the Anti-Corruption Commission did not give separate answers to the above report and caused an obstacle to the plaintiff's exercise of rights is without merit.

C. On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the administrative vicarious execution warrant (No. 5) was forged by this 00 and failed to be investigated and disclosed by the Anti-Corruption Commission. However, it does not seem to be within the scope of the authority and responsibility of the Anti-Corruption Commission in light of the purport of the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act and the function of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, red or optical

Judges Chan-chan

Judge Coordination