Criteria for interpretation of “to be subject to performance of duties” under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act;

The purport of Paragraph 1 of this Article is that “the performance of official duties” means “the performance of official duties” under Paragraph 1 of this Article, even if the victim knew that such act was not an actual performance of official duties, or that such act was not an actual performance of official duties, regardless of the actor’s subjective intent, if deemed to be an act of official duties by objectively observing the external appearance of public officials.

Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Countries

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 65Na692 delivered on March 23, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 of the plaintiff's early refund is examined.

In the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim by developing the theory as follows. In other words, it is clear that the non-party 1's act of selling the firearms was not engaged in the execution of his duties, and unless the non-party 2 (the injured party) knows such circumstances, the non-party 1 was a public official, and even if it was closely related to the non-party 2's act of executing official duties, it cannot be deemed that the defendant bears the responsibility for the death of the non-party 2. However, the purport of "the non-party 2's act" in Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act should be objectively observed the external appearance of the public official's act, and if it is viewed as a public official's act regardless of his own intention, it should be viewed as a public official's act of performing his duties regardless of his own intention, and even if the victim knew that such act was not actually an act of performing official duties, it should not be viewed as an "act of performing his duties" in Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

From this point of view, the court below did not seem to have shown any trace of the non-party 1's act of selling the firearms in the objective criteria, and determined that the non-party 1's act of selling the firearms is an act for use in the practical aspect, and thus it is not an act for use. In addition, even though the non-party 1's act of selling the firearms was closely related to the act of performing his duties, the court below erred in finding that the non-party 1's act of selling the firearms was not engaged in the act of performing his duties.

Therefore, the court below is justified in this point since it is clear that the court below erred in the legal principles of the State Compensation Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which held the original judgment.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.