(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.01 2014나2018153

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.01 2014나2018153

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fourth 7th of the first instance judgment (in addition or height), “Plaintiff A” shall be added to “I, 200.8.2” next.

Part 5 2 "A series of acts to be prosecuted" shall be deemed to be "a series of acts to be prosecuted".

The following shall be added to Chapter 5 4:

“The Plaintiff alleged that the act of the judge who found the Plaintiff A guilty is unlawful by abusing the principle of free evaluation of evidence and recognizing the admissibility of non-voluntary confessions and abusing the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Thus, even if there was an error by failing to comply with the provisions of the law of the court, this does not lead to the State’s liability for damages, which is an unlawful act as referred to in Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. To recognize the State’s liability for damages, there must be special circumstances where it is recognized that the relevant judge tried for an unlawful or unjustifiable purpose, or that the law clearly violates the purpose of the authority granted by the judge to him (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da24218, Jul. 11, 2003). The above basic facts and each statement of evidence No. 1 through No. 8 are insufficient to recognize the above special circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit.

Although public prosecution has been raised on the basis of evidence collected by a government agency due to an illegal act during the investigation process and a final judgment of conviction has been made, it is found that the existence of grounds for retrial is delayed.

참조조문

-국가배상법 제2조 제1항

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 7. 11. 선고 99다24218 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.12.16 2015나19768

-광주고등법원 2018.05.24 2016누5272

-서울고등법원 2015.10.28 2015나2025462

-서울고등법원 2015.01.14 2014나2032296

-서울고등법원 2016.11.03 2016누57610