(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rendered a judgment on the merits without breaking the defects that did not go through the procedure for application for compensation in the lawsuit for damages under the State Compensation Act;

B. Principle of free evaluation of evidence concerning the cooking and selection of different appraisal results

(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rendered a judgment on the merits without breaking the defects that did not go through the procedure for application for compensation in the lawsuit for damages under the State Compensation Act;

B. If there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, it is legitimate unless it violates the rules of experience or logic.

A. Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, Article 205 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 187

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da2304 delivered on May 24, 197 (Gong1977, 10109) 79Da262 delivered on April 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 11932) (Gong1990, 2090) 2. Supreme Court Decision 91Da16075 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2353) 91Da4674 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong192,1543) 91Da39368 delivered on October 27, 1992

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na34591 delivered on June 1, 1994

1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 are assessed against the same Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Although Article 9 of the State Compensation Act provides that a lawsuit seeking compensation against the State or a local government may bring a lawsuit against the State or a local government at the expiration of three months from the date of the decision of compensation or the application for the payment of compensation, according to the records, it is clear that the Plaintiff was not subject to the procedure of the aforementioned request for compensation at the time of the instant lawsuit and even at the time of the closing of argument in the court below, so the judgment of the court below is unlawful since it was erroneous in its judgment on the merits without any defect in the requirements for the lawsuit (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da2304 delivered on May 24, 197). The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal against

2. On the second ground for appeal

Defendant 1’s act constitutes self-defense or an emergency evacuation under Article 761 of the Civil Act, without being alleged by the Defendants in the lower court, is a new assertion that was made only in the final appeal without being alleged by the Defendants in the lower court, and thus, it is not a matter of ex officio investigation. Such a ground of appeal as to Defendant 1 cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. On the third ground for appeal

If there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, it is legitimate unless it violates the empirical or logical rules (see Supreme Court Decisions 8Da21210, Apr. 10, 1990; 91Da16075, Aug. 13, 1991; 91Da4674, Apr. 10, 1992; 91Da39368, Oct. 27, 1992). The court below determined that the rate of loss of oil and labor ability by citing the results of physical appraisal commissioned to the head of a school at the court of first instance, the head of a school at the court of first instance, the head of a university at the university at the court of first instance, the head of the Gangnam-nam Hospital at the court of first instance, and the head of the Seoul National University Hospital; 91Da4678, Oct. 27, 1992.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 are assessed against the same defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)