Whether the State is liable for compensation for damages or liability for damages incurred by failure to enforce compulsory execution against the foreign embassyr in accordance with the application of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (negative)

Even though the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations directly prohibits the compulsory execution against the property in the mission as well as an embassy's order against the Embassy, the provisions of the Convention itself does not directly infringe on the property rights of the people by forcing any legal act with a foreign embassy, etc., and the issue of whether to conduct any legal act with a foreign embassy subject to the provisions of the Convention is entirely entrusted to the citizen's free will. Thus, it cannot be deemed as due to the exercise of public authority by the State. Furthermore, since the foreign embassy explicitly expressed its intention to refuse compulsory execution based on a favorable judgment in advance, it cannot be deemed that the damage was caused by the direct cause of the refusal of compulsory execution by the Embassy, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the subject of the compensation. Moreover, it does not constitute a tort by failing to enact the compensation legislation or by refusing compulsory execution on the ground of the relevant provisions of the Convention.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 23(3) of the Constitution

1. The term "motor vehicle" means a vehicle or vehicle or vehicle or vehicle or vehicle or vehicle or vehicle or vehicle or vehicle;

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na14208 delivered on February 29, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts based on the evidences, and found that the compensation for losses under the Constitution was made as a result of the lawful exercise of public authority according to the public necessity, and on the premise that the compensation for losses under the Constitution was made in adjustment of special losses caused by the individual's property rights, and even if the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") directly prohibits the compulsory execution against the property in the mission, it does not directly infringe the citizen's property rights by enforcing any legal act with the foreign embassy directly, and it is entirely left to the citizen's free will. Thus, it cannot be viewed as due to the defendant's exercise of public authority. Furthermore, since the non-party 1 expressed clearly his intention to refuse compulsory execution based on the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in advance, it cannot be deemed that the damages were caused by the plaintiffs' refusal of compulsory execution by the office's rejection of the above Convention, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the compensation for losses caused by the defendant's non-party 1's refusal of compulsory execution.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)