Whether the State Compensation Act's compensation principle violates the Constitution or not.

According to the proviso of Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, the State Compensation Act, Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, provides that the State Compensation Act has been established in order to reduce the time and body in trial proceedings, the victim's effort, and to promptly and simply remedy the victim. In a case where no decision is made within two months from the date the application for compensation is filed, a lawsuit may be brought even if the decision is not made. Therefore, the provision cannot be interpreted as a provision that infringes on the right to equality of the people or the right to be tried by judges and limits the right to claim compensation

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, Articles 8, 9, 24, and 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul District Court of First Instance (67Ga11483)

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 2,012,26 won with the amount of 1,00,000 won per annum from March 8, 1967 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

First of all, we judge the defendant's main defense of safety.

In order to claim damages against the State pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act (Act No. 1899), the State is unable to file a lawsuit against the court which is not after the decision of compensation is made by the Compensation Council pursuant to Article 9 of the same Act (However, a direct lawsuit may be filed without the decision of compensation in the case where two months have passed from the date of the application for decision of compensation), and the date of the principal lawsuit by the plaintiff et al. is clear that the date of the decision of compensation is October 19, 1967, which is after the illegal enforcement, and that the plaintiff et al. did not file an application for decision of compensation with the Compensation Council under the above statement of the plaintiff et al., so this lawsuit by the plaintiffs is an unlawful lawsuit which lacks

According to Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, the principle of prior decision-making by the Council under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act that the State Compensation Act may bring a lawsuit against the State only when the decision-making is made to the State, and Article 8, 9, 24, and 26 of the Constitution provides that the same shall not be effective. Thus, Article 9 of the State Compensation Act stipulates that the principle of prior decision-making by the Council violates the provisions of Article 8, 9, 24, and 26 of the Constitution. Thus, the State Compensation Act Article 9 of the State Compensation Act stipulates that the State Compensation Act is established in order to reduce the victim's efforts at time and time in trial proceedings and to promptly and promptly remedy the victim. In addition, even if the decision-making is not made within two months from the date the request for decision-making is made, even if the decision-making is not made, it is possible to bring a lawsuit. Thus, the provision cannot be interpreted that the provision is against the Constitution.

In this case, the judgment of the court below, which is the same purport as the plaintiff's claim for principal action, is just and without merit, is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 384, 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)