logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.02 2015나2029488
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court has accepted the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are stated as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is to delete the phrase “as of October 16, 1978,” the phrase “as of October 3, 1978,” the phrase “as of October 3, 1978,” the phrase “as of October 30, 1978,” and the phrase “as of October 30, 1978, the detention warrant was issued and executed, and was prosecuted under detention.”

Part 4, 2, 3, and 5 of the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter referred to as the “former Constitution”) is added.

In Chapter 7, the 4th " argument of tort due to investigation, prosecution, and trial" is regarded as "claim of tort due to investigation, prosecution, and trial."

On the 9th 5th 5th 2th 5th 2th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 99 “a person who arrests and confiness Plaintiff A without a warrant of detention, after obtaining a warrant of detention,” and “a person who arrests and confiness Plaintiff A without a warrant of detention,” and 12th 12th 12th 12th is added to “(a person who, around October 16, 1978, the investigative agency claimed that the Plaintiff was arrested and detained without a warrant of custody, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiffs’ assertion, and even if so, it is difficult to deem that the investigation agency constituted a tort by a public official’s intentional or negligent act,

After the first instance of the first instance, “The judgment of innocence was rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act for the same reason in the retrial procedure.”

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed for all reasons.

arrow