All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, Article 7 of the State Compensation Act requires “where a foreigner is a victim, there shall be mutual guarantee with the pertinent country.” In order to prevent any disadvantage that may be borne only by the Republic of Korea and to promote equity in international relations, the pertinent country’s demand for the occurrence of State compensation claims against a foreigner is the same as or superior to that of the Republic of Korea would be an excessive restriction on the foreigner’s right to state compensation, and not only go against today’s reality where international exchanges are frequent but also may bring about unreasonable consequences that allow Korean nationals to refuse to protect. Considering that the requirements for State compensation claims do not lose balance among Korea and foreign countries and the requirements set forth in a foreign country are not excessive than those set forth in the Republic of Korea, it is reasonable to deem that the requirements for mutual guarantee under Article 7 of the State Compensation Act are satisfied if there is no substantial difference in terms of the important points.

In addition, it is sufficient to acknowledge the requirements of mutual guarantee in comparison with the requirements arising under foreign laws, precedents and practices, etc., and there is no need to conclude a treaty with the parties, and it is sufficient that the foreign country can expect that it will be actually recognized even if there is no case where the Korean citizens are recognized in the foreign country.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da74213, Oct. 28, 2004; 2012Meu66, 73, Feb. 15, 2013). Examining these legal principles and records, the Plaintiff, a Japanese, is the Defendant.