2015Na2031290 Damage, Claim

Attached 1. It is as shown in the plaintiffs' list

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap544362 Decided June 5, 2015

December 4, 2015

January 15, 2016

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum from October 23, 1979 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that the reasoning for this case is stated in 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

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Supreme Court Decision 2013Da217962 Decided October 27, 2014 ruled that the act of an investigative agency or a judge’s judicial act of an emergency measure is not a tort by a public official’s intentional or negligent act as referred to in Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act solely on the ground that the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da217962 Decided October 27, 2014 declared unconstitutional and declared that the act of an emergency measure No.9 was objectively regarded as an unlawful act, even though it was objectively evaluated as an unlawful act without the awareness of an unlawful act. The Supreme Court determined that the act of an investigative agency or judge’s act of an emergency measure is not a tort by a public official’s intentional or negligent act as referred to in Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. It is clearly erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the requirements for establishment of an unlawful act. Thus, it is recognized that an intentional act of an investigative agency, including an intentional act of a judge, was unlawful and justifiable in light of the purpose or objective purpose of the Act.

B. Determination

In intention, it is sufficient to recognize that the perception of the intention is objectively unlawful, and it is not necessary to subjectively recognize that the perception is unlawful if there is a perception that it would inflict at least damage on another person in the management of the actor.

However, after a public official judged that a specific statute is constitutional, the statute is unconstitutional.

In a case where a declaration of invalidation and invalidation is made, if it is difficult to expect that a public official will faithfully average to handle the same treatment method as or above at the time of execution, barring any special circumstance, it is difficult to deem that a public official was intentional or negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da31018, Jun. 11, 2004). For a judge to be held liable for State compensation with respect to judicial duties, special circumstances should exist to deem that a judge clearly violated the purpose of authority vested by the judge, such as where the judge tried with unlawful or unreasonable purposes or where the law requires compliance with the judge’s duty performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da24218, Jul. 11, 2003; Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da24218, Apr. 18, 2013; Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2013Hun-Ba137, Jul. 11, 2013>

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge

Judges in depth;

Judge Senior Superintendent General