(영문) 대법원 2016.5.12.선고 2013다200759 판결

All costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff A and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the costs of the lawsuit between the other plaintiffs and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

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

A. As to the grounds of appeal against the plaintiff A, the Act on the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Commercial Act") provides for the stabilization of their livelihood and the improvement of their welfare by the State to persons who have sacrificed in relation to democratization movements and their bereaved family members, and Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act provides for the payment of compensation benefits to the Commission in accordance with the rules of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission's decision-making on compensation") for the following reasons: (a) on or after March 24, 1964, the term "divatization movement" means a person who has contributed to the realization of ideology and values of the Constitution and the establishment of democratic constitutional order that infringe on the fundamental rights of the people, and (b) the applicant is entitled to the payment of compensation benefits in accordance with the rules of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as "persons related to democratization movements"), and (c) the applicant is entitled to the payment of compensation benefits in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Act:

In addition, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Democratization Compensation Act provides that "where an applicant who has received a notice of decision on the payment of compensation or a notice of decision on the payment of living allowances or a notice of decision on the restoration of honor intends to receive compensation, etc., he/she shall submit to the Commission a written consent and a written request stating the following matters (attached Form 10), along with one copy of the decision on compensation, decision on the payment of living allowances or the original copy of the decision on the restoration of honor, and one copy of the applicant's certificate of personal seal impression." "The provision provides that an applicant shall consent to the decision on compensation and claim the payment of compensation, etc.", and the consent and written request of the above Enforcement Decree [Attachment Form 10] provides that "where the applicant has received the compensation, etc., he/she shall make a compromise contract on the case

In full view of the legislative purport of the Act on the Compensation for Democratization, the contents of the relevant provisions, the consent prepared and submitted by the applicant, and the contents of the written claim, when the legislative purpose of Article 18(2) of the Act on the Compensation for Democratization has consented to the determination of the payment of compensation, etc., such effect as judicial reconciliation, in particular, by granting res judicata, the applicant shall promptly terminate and implement the same through the procedure for the determination of the Commission’s compensation prior to the litigation and granting stability in the decision of the payment of compensation, etc., in cases where the applicant consented to the determination of the Commission’s compensation, etc., the applicant shall be deemed to have the same effect as a judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act with respect to all damage arising in relation to the democratization movement for which he/she received compensation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da45603, Mar. 13, 2014

Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 2 (d) of the Democratization Compensation Act provides that one of the Committee shall be deemed as one of the following persons. Article 9(1) provides that “The Commission may grant subsidies to assist the following persons and their bereaved family members in their lives.” The former part of Article 12-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Democratization Compensation Act provides that “the person detained for 30 days or more on the ground of democratization movement” shall be paid an amount calculated by multiplying the minimum cost of living by the relevant number of days for persons detained for 30 days or more among the recipients of living allowances under Article 9(1) of the Act, and such amount shall not exceed 50,000 won. According to the relevant provision, the Act on Democratization Compensation has been effective for 20 years or more after being convicted of a democratization movement, and thus, the court below determined that the applicant was not subject to the same decision for the payment of consolation money for a certain period of time under the Act on Democratization Movement, such as the payment of compensation money for the plaintiff 2 under the same judgment of conviction and the same criminal investigation agency.

3) However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even though the Defendant’s conviction judgment by the instant illegal act was revoked later and the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive through retrial, all damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s illegal act occurred in relation to democratization movements as prescribed by the Democratization Compensation Act, and thus, insofar as Plaintiff A consented to the Commission’s decision on the payment of compensation, etc., it should also be deemed as having the same effect as a judicial compromise pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Democratization Compensation Act. Therefore, the instant lawsuit claiming consolation money due to the illegal act of this case corresponding to the damages incurred by Plaintiff A in relation to democratization movements is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of validity under Article 18(2) of the Democratization Compensation Act, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

B. As to the remaining grounds of appeal against the Plaintiffs, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the evidence admitted in its judgment, and determined that the investigators belonging to the Defendant were forced to proceed with the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s warrant and detained the Plaintiff unlawfully for one week, and received a false confession by committing serious harshly harsh acts, such as beta and various advisers, to the Plaintiff A, and as a result, the Plaintiff A got a prison life for more than three years.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence

2) Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

Although the lower court’s reasoning on this part was inappropriate, it is justifiable in its conclusion that rejected this part of the Defendant’s assertion, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there was no error by misapprehending the legal doctrine on extinctive prescription

2. As to the Plaintiff A’s ground of appeal

As to the part against the lower judgment, the Plaintiff A’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff, who received compensation, etc., as seen earlier, is not effective as a judicial compromise. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Plaintiff A is reversed. Since this part is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, the appeal by Plaintiff A, which falls under this part, shall be dismissed, and the appeal by Plaintiff A and the appeal by the Defendant against the remaining Plaintiffs shall be dismissed, respectively. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.